# Paedobaptism view of Credobaptist Children



## travis

So, since paedos baptize their children as means of ingrafting them in to the God's covenant and visible church, what is our (presbyterian) view of the children of believers whose parents are Credo? I am seriously just thinking out loud here. I have been trying to wrap my head around all of this since I have information coming from all sides (credo and paedo).

And a second question for you FV guys. Is there any more detail that you can go in to as far as your belief of baptised children being covenantaly elect in light of non-baptized childern of elect individuals?

If this is all confusing, please forgive me.


----------



## Romans922

I dont think FVers are allowed here, at least that is what I thought.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Travis,
Specifically:



> 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



First of all, there are no FV supporters here on this board that I am aware of. As far as the other question, the answer is based upon a hermeneutic. Credo baptists believe generally that the NC began with Christ and was _initiated_ at the last supper, _consumated_ at the cross. For the Presbyterian, this is very dispensational. We see the C of G beginning in Gen 3. From a Presbyterian view, the bible says that the children will be cut off from Gods people for now submitting to placing the sign upon their seeds. 

Genesis 17:10-14 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

As well, the WCF calls it a 'great sin' to not place the sign:



> V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
> 
> 13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
> 14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
> 15. Acts 8:13, 23



[Edited on 8-29-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SRoper

The children of credobaptist parents who are part of the visible church are covenant children who have been denied the sign.


----------



## turmeric




----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The FV position on election is that you can be elect to be in covenant with God in the church but not be elected unto eternal salvation. 

As a credo I believe the Covenant of Grace is consumated in the New Covenant even though it has been around since the Foundation of the World. Maybe I am not using the correct language but Christ is the fulfilment of the Promise to Adam and Eve and Abraham. 

I believe the Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ and done away with as Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> The children of credobaptist parents who are part of the visible church are covenant children who have been denied the sign.



What covenant are credobaptist parents covenanting with?



> Genesis 17:7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
> 
> Genesis 17:10 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep;
> 
> Genesis 17:13 My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.



What everlasting covenant was God referring to when He made this covenant w/ Abraham?

Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........

[Edited on 8-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

P.S. My Children were born children of wrath and remained so until regenerate. Just like I was. The Christianity Explored Series By Rico Tice, really helped awaken then.

Based upon their belief in Christ's atoning work, they where baptized by their Papaw.
The Snyder Boy's Baptism


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........



Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.
Click to expand...


Randy,
Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.
Click to expand...


In the same way the sabbath has changed without any illumination, by neccesary inferrence, the command to to place the sign upon the covenant child is there as well:



> Genesis 17:10-14 0 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."



You previously said:



> I believe the Covenant of Grace is consumated in the New Covenant even though it has been around since the Foundation of the World.



[Edited on 8-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy,
> Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?
Click to expand...


Off track question.....

Doesn't address the issue. 

BTW. Hey Scott good to talk to you again. Miss you guys. Will be coming around more. But not to debate. I am burnt out from debating stupidity. ie. FV and NPP and other weird stuff.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Romans 4:8-13 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 

Greek
4973 sfragi,j sphragis {sfrag-ece'} 
Meaning: 1) a seal 1a) the seal placed upon books 1b) a signet ring 1c) the inscription or impression made by a seal 1c1) of the name of God and Christ stamped upon their foreheads 1d) that by which anything is confirmed, proved, authenticated, as by a seal (a token or proof) 

There are at least 15 occurences of the word in the NT.

It is very similar to the OT:

2368 ~t'Ax chowtham {kho-thawm'} or ~t'xo chotham {kho-thawm'} 
Meaning: 1) seal, signet, signet-ring 
Origin: from 02856; TWOT - 780a; n m
Usage: AV - signet 9, seal 5; 14


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> In the same way the sabbath has changed without any illumination, by neccesary inferrence, the command to to place the sign upon the covenant child is there as well:



Yeah the sabbath has changed to the Lord's Day, but the shift is easily seen in the New Testament as the Church is mentioned as meeting on the first day. And Historical writings point to it.


The early historical writings have no precedent in covenant baptism. I read a good book by a few paedos called Baptism in the Early Church that confirmed covenant baptism as you know them didn't exist. Covenant Theology as we know it hasn't even been systematized until the Reformation. It is a new concept from what I have seen.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy,
> Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off track question.....
> 
> Doesn't address the issue.
> 
> BTW. Hey Scott good to talk to you again. Miss you guys. Will be coming around more. But not to debate. I am burnt out from debating stupidity. ie. FV and NPP and other weird stuff.
Click to expand...


Randy,
The question is not off topic; it is very relevant. Indulge me. Will God ever again destroy the world with water?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> In the same way the sabbath has changed without any illumination, by neccesary inferrence, the command to to place the sign upon the covenant child is there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the sabbath has changed to the Lord's Day, but the shift is easily seen in the New Testament as the Church is mentioned as meeting on the first day. And Historical writings point to it.
> 
> 
> The early historical writings have no precedent in covenant baptism. I read a good book by a few paedos called Baptism in the Early Church that confirmed covenant baptism as you know them didn't exist. Covenant Theology as we know it hasn't even been systematized until the Reformation. It is a new concept from what I have seen.
Click to expand...


Wrong. The first covenant was between God and Christ; before the foundation of the world. This is known as the Covenant of redemption". Hence, CT is not a 'new concept'. Theology is defined as the study of God and the things of God & covenant theology is the study of God, the things of God and how covenant works. God has always been a covenant God; he has never functioned outside the realm of covenant theology.


----------



## Scott Bushey

The shift of the sabbath is NOT easily seen. This is exactly why the majority of run of the mill church goers do not keep it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Romans 4:8-13 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
> 
> Greek
> 4973 sfragi,j sphragis {sfrag-ece'}
> Meaning: 1) a seal 1a) the seal placed upon books 1b) a signet ring 1c) the inscription or impression made by a seal 1c1) of the name of God and Christ stamped upon their foreheads 1d) that by which anything is confirmed, proved, authenticated, as by a seal (a token or proof)
> 
> There are at least 15 occurences of the word in the NT.
> 
> It is very similar to the OT:
> 
> 2368 ~t'Ax chowtham {kho-thawm'} or ~t'xo chotham {kho-thawm'}
> Meaning: 1) seal, signet, signet-ring
> Origin: from 02856; TWOT - 780a; n m
> Usage: AV - signet 9, seal 5; 14



You are correct. I was thinking in a way of covenant sealing. But as I have stated and argued before I do not believe Baptism is circumsicion in the New Testament and it is never called that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Romans 4:8-13 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
> 
> Greek
> 4973 sfragi,j sphragis {sfrag-ece'}
> Meaning: 1) a seal 1a) the seal placed upon books 1b) a signet ring 1c) the inscription or impression made by a seal 1c1) of the name of God and Christ stamped upon their foreheads 1d) that by which anything is confirmed, proved, authenticated, as by a seal (a token or proof)
> 
> There are at least 15 occurences of the word in the NT.
> 
> It is very similar to the OT:
> 
> 2368 ~t'Ax chowtham {kho-thawm'} or ~t'xo chotham {kho-thawm'}
> Meaning: 1) seal, signet, signet-ring
> Origin: from 02856; TWOT - 780a; n m
> Usage: AV - signet 9, seal 5; 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I was thinking in a way of covenant sealing. But as I have stated and argued before I do not believe Baptism is circumsicion in the New Testament and it is never called that.
Click to expand...


OK. Wanna address the Noahic covenant please?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> In the same way the sabbath has changed without any illumination, by neccesary inferrence, the command to to place the sign upon the covenant child is there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the sabbath has changed to the Lord's Day, but the shift is easily seen in the New Testament as the Church is mentioned as meeting on the first day. And Historical writings point to it.
> 
> 
> The early historical writings have no precedent in covenant baptism. I read a good book by a few paedos called Baptism in the Early Church that confirmed covenant baptism as you know them didn't exist. Covenant Theology as we know it hasn't even been systematized until the Reformation. It is a new concept from what I have seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The first covenant was between God and Christ; before the foundation of the world. This is known as the Covenant of redemption". Hence, CT is not a 'new concept'. Theology is defined as the study of God and the things of God & covenant theology is the study of God, the things of God and how covenant works. God has always been a covenant God; he has never functioned outside the realm of covenant theology.
Click to expand...


Name one theologian who wrote extensively on Covenant Theology, The Covenant of Redemption (which some use interchangebly with the Covenant of Grace), the Abrahamic Covenant, The Covenant of Circumcision, Noahic Covenant, The Mosaic Covenant, The Covenant of David, The New Covenant. It's formulation and understanding the way we understand it in a whole is something the Church has only come to grips with in the last 400 to 600 years.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> [
> 
> OK. Wanna address the Noahic covenant please?



Just make your statement.


----------



## Scott Bushey

One theologian? Thats Easy. Jesus! the Apostles, The writer of Hebrews. The Pharisees. Zacharias clearly speaks of it:



> Luke 1:67-72 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;



What _holy_ covenant was zacharias referring to?

Peter:



> Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.



Peter was a covenat theologian!



> Galatians 3:15-18 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.



Paul was most definately a covenant theologian! No need to quote from Hebrews; we know the writer was speaking in covenantal terms. Ultimately, these men were more the covenant theologians than any of us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I need to go right now Scott. I will get back to you later brother.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> [
> 
> OK. Wanna address the Noahic covenant please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just make your statement.
Click to expand...


no. Answer the question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> One theologian? Thats Easy. Jesus! the Apostles, The writer of Hebrews. The Pharisees. Zacharias clearly speaks of it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 1:67-72 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _holy_ covenant was zacharias referring to?
> 
> Peter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peter was a covenat theologian!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 3:15-18 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul was most definately a covenant theologian! No need to quote from Hebrews; we know the writer was speaking in covenantal terms. Ultimately, these men were more the covenant theologians than any of us.
Click to expand...


Come on Scott... You know what I am talking about. I believe it is scriptural as you do. As the doctrine of the Trinity was defined by theologians years after the scriptures were complete so has the docrine and understanding of Covenant Theology. I just believe it's formulations and understanding by the Church has been coming a bit slow. Name other Theologians outside of the Scriptures brother. Tertillian is really the first to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and coin the phrase. So Francis Territan came along later and showed the continuity of the Scriptures by Covenant Theology. I think Someone wrote about it before he did but I can't remember the Theologians name. 

I need to run right now but will get back to you.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Romans 4:8-13 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
> 
> Greek
> 4973 sfragi,j sphragis {sfrag-ece'}
> Meaning: 1) a seal 1a) the seal placed upon books 1b) a signet ring 1c) the inscription or impression made by a seal 1c1) of the name of God and Christ stamped upon their foreheads 1d) that by which anything is confirmed, proved, authenticated, as by a seal (a token or proof)
> 
> There are at least 15 occurences of the word in the NT.
> 
> It is very similar to the OT:
> 
> 2368 ~t'Ax chowtham {kho-thawm'} or ~t'xo chotham {kho-thawm'}
> Meaning: 1) seal, signet, signet-ring
> Origin: from 02856; TWOT - 780a; n m
> Usage: AV - signet 9, seal 5; 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I was thinking in a way of covenant sealing. But as I have stated and argued before I do not believe Baptism is circumsicion in the New Testament and it is never called that.
Click to expand...


Uhh for the record, the nC is sealed by God himself, in blood:



> Genesis 15:6-17 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.



Swearing against Himself.



> 2 Timothy 2:13 13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> [
> 
> OK. Wanna address the Noahic covenant please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just make your statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. Answer the question.
Click to expand...


No, You first....


Just being playful brother.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> One theologian? Thats Easy. Jesus! the Apostles, The writer of Hebrews. The Pharisees. Zacharias clearly speaks of it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 1:67-72 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _holy_ covenant was zacharias referring to?
> 
> Peter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peter was a covenat theologian!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 3:15-18 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul was most definately a covenant theologian! No need to quote from Hebrews; we know the writer was speaking in covenantal terms. Ultimately, these men were more the covenant theologians than any of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Scott... You know what I am talking about. I believe it is scriptural as you do. As the doctrine of the Trinity was defined by theologians years after the scriptures were complete so has the docrine and understanding of Covenant Theology. I just believe it's formulations and understanding by the Church has been coming a bit slow. Name other Theologians outside of the Scriptures brother. Tertillian is really the first to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and coin the phrase. So Francis Territan came along later and showed the continuity of the Scriptures by Covenant Theology. I think Someone wrote about it before he did but I can't remember the Theologians name.
> 
> I need to run right now but will get back to you.
Click to expand...


Come on Randy!  I learned what I know of Gods covenant from the bible and THE covenant theologians. 

I will wait on your answer about the flood........as well, I will ask you, is God immutable or not?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just a historical notation:

It would be historically ignorant to say that Covenant Theology popped up int he last 400-600 years. One would certainly want to start with Iranaeus and Augustine, among other church writers of the early church in discussing the "covenants". 

One would want to look at the biblical terminology "Counsel of Peace" and other like passages, and the explanations given to them by the early writers. There are tons of passages written on far before the "reformation" ever came about on theological writers who structured their theology on the covenants.

I think that is what often "irks" the Covenant Theologians of today when they hear silly statements like that.

The same concepts that they wrote about concerning CT are the same concepts the Reformers and Puritans wrote about. Its no wonder, then, that Augustine is so often quoted in these contexts.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott, that's funny because I had heard that Paul was most definitely a dispensationalist. :bigsmile:

I'm curious, have any of you who believe covenant theology believed that from the start because that is what you were taught? Or were some of you dispensationalists who studied and changed what you believed?


----------



## Kevin

1) Travis, I would think that the place to begin is by recognising that the parents (of unbaptised children) are in sin. As the WCF says to neglect baptism is a sin.

More then that I will let an elder brother say.

2) Brian, I was brought up in a Baptist, Dispensational, fundy-type of church. I also got a BA in Biblical Studies from a well known Southern University of that ilk.

So I was not taught that from the start. I began to "study" covenant theology AFTER I was a Presbyterian. I left the Baptist church for the Presbyterian over the issue of baptism.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Thanks for your answer Kevin.

You must have found that tough to do, being raised Baptist and going through such a fundamental change. How do you do that? I'd be afraid I'm sinning and going off the deep end. So right or wrong, here I stand.


----------



## Ambrose

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, that's funny because I had heard that Paul was most definitely a dispensationalist. :bigsmile:
> 
> I'm curious, have any of you who believe covenant theology believed that from the start because that is what you were taught? Or were some of you dispensationalists who studied and changed what you believed?



Former Dispensational.


----------



## Kevin

The process was the result of a several year long study of the doctrine of baptism. Once I saw that the scripture taught aspersion or affusion as the only mode of baptism and that the proper subjects were believers and their children...

I felt I had no choice I could no longer stay in a church that taught such a serious error as immersion.

By Gods grace I ended up in a PCA church & really began to grow. Today (16 years later) my parents and all 3 of my sisters (& 3 brothers-in-law) are members of reformed chuches (PCA, OPC, ARP) and we have 14 covenant children amongst us!

BTW all three of my sisters were still baptists when they were married (to baptist husbands) so we have really seen God work in our family.


----------



## beej6

I might be the rarest bird on this board - raised Roman Catholic, not in church for well over 10 years (that's counting the RC), and by God's grace brought to an independent, Reformed (now OPC) church where I was saved. I knew nothing from anything Dispensational, fundy, paedo, credo before that. Perhaps I still don't.

[Edited on 8-30-2006 by beej6]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Travis,

We don't ingraft children via baptism. We baptize children of believing parents _because_ those children are already members (outwardly at least) of the covenant of grace and the heirs of promises from God. 

Baptism _recognizes_ their membership and is a sign of what is true for all who believe and a promise of what will be true when they believe/guarantee of the things promised to believers.

Children of rebellious parents, who will not place the sign on their covenant children until they make profession, are like Moses who refused to circumcize his son. 

The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.

The FV folk believe that baptism unites their children conditionally "head for head" to Christ, makes them conditionally elect, justified, and adopted. They also teach that these conditional blessings of baptism can be lost if the children do not "trust and obey." In effect, they teach that children are "in the covenant of grace/works by grace and they stay through faith and works."

See these resources.

rsc





> _Originally posted by travis_
> So, since paedos baptize their children as means of ingrafting them in to the God's covenant and visible church, what is our (presbyterian) view of the children of believers whose parents are Credo? I am seriously just thinking out loud here. I have been trying to wrap my head around all of this since I have information coming from all sides (credo and paedo).
> 
> And a second question for you FV guys. Is there any more detail that you can go in to as far as your belief of baptised children being covenantaly elect in light of non-baptized childern of elect individuals?
> 
> If this is all confusing, please forgive me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> One theologian? Thats Easy. Jesus! the Apostles, The writer of Hebrews. The Pharisees. Zacharias clearly speaks of it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 1:67-72 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _holy_ covenant was zacharias referring to?
> 
> Peter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peter was a covenat theologian!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 3:15-18 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul was most definately a covenant theologian! No need to quote from Hebrews; we know the writer was speaking in covenantal terms. Ultimately, these men were more the covenant theologians than any of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Scott... You know what I am talking about. I believe it is scriptural as you do. As the doctrine of the Trinity was defined by theologians years after the scriptures were complete so has the docrine and understanding of Covenant Theology. I just believe it's formulations and understanding by the Church has been coming a bit slow. Name other Theologians outside of the Scriptures brother. Tertillian is really the first to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and coin the phrase. So Francis Territan came along later and showed the continuity of the Scriptures by Covenant Theology. I think Someone wrote about it before he did but I can't remember the Theologians name.
> 
> I need to run right now but will get back to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Randy!  I learned what I know of Gods covenant from the bible and THE covenant theologians.
> 
> I will wait on your answer about the flood........as well, I will ask you, is God immutable or not?
Click to expand...


Yes, 
God's decretive will is immutable. What are you asking me about the Noahic Covenant and why?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I want to know if you believe God will not destroy the Earth by water ever again?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Just a historical notation:
> 
> It would be historically ignorant to say that Covenant Theology popped up int he last 400-600 years. One would certainly want to start with Iranaeus and Augustine, among other church writers of the early church in discussing the "covenants".
> 
> One would want to look at the biblical terminology "Counsel of Peace" and other like passages, and the explanations given to them by the early writers. There are tons of passages written on far before the "reformation" ever came about on theological writers who structured their theology on the covenants.
> 
> I think that is what often "irks" the Covenant Theologians of today when they hear silly statements like that.
> 
> The same concepts that they wrote about concerning CT are the same concepts the Reformers and Puritans wrote about. Its no wonder, then, that Augustine is so often quoted in these contexts.



Matt,
I am irked when you guys act like something has been understood as well as you think it is today by the Church. Covenant Theology may have been understood by others but it has really only come to it's fullest understanding during the Reformation. And I think you know that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I want to know if you believe God will not destroy the Earth by water ever again?



What does that have to do with anything?
Do you believe God can sin?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
It's a simple question. Do you believe God will never again destroy the Earth with water?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott,
I made some simple arguments also. You have neglected them. And you are not answering my charges. You are wanting me to go on a rabbit trail and you won't tell me why? I laid down a path of claims before this post. I am sticking to the path I laid down. You know what I believe. Stay on my path.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
Here's your previous quote:



> Their is not command in the scripture that tells me specifically to Baptize my children as a seal. In fact the only seal mentioned in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit Scott. I am not a Covenant Breaker. You have added to the law.



In which I responded:



> Randy,
> Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?



Which you refuse to interact with. Now you know it is relevant as it is covenant language, i.e. The Noahic covenant (you just called it that), and you know the answer; it's simple, NO! But you won't go there because if you go there, you will shoot yourself in the foot because you know I will ask you why you believe that God will NEVER ever destroy the Earth with water ever again; and we know why that is. 

Here, I'll just dialog with myself:

Scott, 
Will God ever destroy the Earth with water ever again? *No!*

Okay Scott, on what basis do you come to this conclusion? *Because God has covenanted with mankind in that regard:*



> Genesis 9:8-17 8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for **perpetual generations*: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.



*5769 ~l'A[ `owlam {o-lawm'} or ~l'[o `olam {o-lawm'} 
Meaning: 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity 
Origin: from 05956; TWOT - 1631a; n m
Usage: AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15, never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2, more 2, never + 0408 2, misc 6; 439

Scott, do you know of any Christians that would disagree with your assessment? *No, none! I believe 100% of Christendom would agree. God uses language that shows it's perpetuality.*

What does it mean that God has covenanted? *It means that God has instituted and contracted w/ mankind and nature a binding contract never again to destroy the Earth again by a flood. God does not lie; He is immutable. By going against this principle, He would not be God; He would even deny Himself.*

Okay; in that regard, when speaking of the Abrahamic covenant or the Covenant of redemption, do you have any doubt about what God has covenanted? Are these covenants perpetual? What about the Mosaic? *All of them are perpetual.*

Scott, what exactly does it mean to be a covenant breaker? *It means you have not held up your end of the agreement; both parties play a part in the covenant.*

Lets look at the Abrahamic covenant:

Genesis 17:2-14 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an **everlasting covenant*, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

5769 ~l'A[ `owlam {o-lawm'} or ~l'[o `olam {o-lawm'} 
Meaning: 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity 
Origin: from 05956; TWOT - 1631a; n m
Usage: AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15, never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2, more 2, never + 0408 2, misc 6; 439


Scott,
Having read the passage above, are the children of parents whom break this **everlasting covenant* cut off? * I have to say yes; thats what Gods word clearly says.* What about the parents? *A parent whom would neglect this *everlasting covenant does not have the faith that the book of Hebrews talks about, because if they did, they would abide by Gods word in this regard.*

Hebrews 6:13-20 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 

Hebrews 11:7-8 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Scott,
Can an elect person be cut off? *No; the elect will abide by Gods covenant.* What about those in error? * That person will be refined by Gods word and eventually come to the truth about God being a covenant keeping God and correct the error and place the sign upon their children.*

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Augusta




----------



## Scott Bushey

I'll add; You said you have made some simple arguments that I ahve not interacted with? Where? The one asking me if God can sin? Yes, God can sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Travis,
> 
> We don't ingraft children via baptism. We baptize children of believing parents _because_ those children are already members (outwardly at least) of the covenant of grace and the heirs of promises from God.
> 
> Baptism _recognizes_ their membership and is a sign of what is true for all who believe and a promise of what will be true when they believe/guarantee of the things promised to believers.
> 
> Children of rebellious parents, who will not place the sign on their covenant children until they make profession, are like Moses who refused to circumcize his son.
> 
> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.
> 
> The FV folk believe that baptism unites their children conditionally "head for head" to Christ, makes them conditionally elect, justified, and adopted. They also teach that these conditional blessings of baptism can be lost if the children do not "trust and obey." In effect, they teach that children are "in the covenant of grace/works by grace and they stay through faith and works."
> 
> See these resources.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by travis_
> So, since paedos baptize their children as means of ingrafting them in to the God's covenant and visible church, what is our (presbyterian) view of the children of believers whose parents are Credo? I am seriously just thinking out loud here. I have been trying to wrap my head around all of this since I have information coming from all sides (credo and paedo).
> 
> And a second question for you FV guys. Is there any more detail that you can go in to as far as your belief of baptised children being covenantaly elect in light of non-baptized childern of elect individuals?
> 
> If this is all confusing, please forgive me.
Click to expand...

Well said Dr. Clark. By the way, I'm enjoying your article in the CPJ on the Reformed view of Baptism. Excellent.

The problem I have with the title of this thread is that it really doesn't much matter the way a paedobaptist views the child of a baptist or vice versa. I really don't lose a nanosecond of sleep worrying about how the Christians in my current Church view my children.

What is important is how God views them and, as Dr. Clark has indicated, has set them apart to be a part of the Covenant.

My largest problem with Baptist theology is how atomistically they view faith and pretend like it's an _improvement_ that God has moved from a pattern of family solidarity in the Covenant to the idea that we're all just individual Covenantal blueberries in some invisible pancake substrate. I may know I'm a blueberry (in the Covenant), but I can't see the other blueberries. I even know there's a pancake but the Pancake is invisible to me too. There's no _real_ sense of Covenant for any Baptist because the Covenant is complete invisible to them as it consists only of the Elect. 

Children are brought into the Body Life of the Church as outsiders. It makes all the Covenantal father-son language of the Psalms and Proverbs virtually meaningless for how a parent raises his children.

I seriously don't know how Baptists are able to consistently live with such a view of the Covenant. In my estimation, the beauty of Calvinism is crowned by its idea of Covenant. Take that away and it becomes very cold.

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe the Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ and done away with as Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8. 

2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

apples and oranges


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rich,
I disagree w/ Dr. Clark here:



> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.



Gods word says differently:



> Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> I disagree w/ Dr. Clark here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Baptism is not circumcision Scott. You are definitely wrong. And you ought to be careful calling sin what God has not implied. It is adding to the law.

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I believe the Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ and done away with as Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8.
> 
> 2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
> 
> Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> apples and oranges



So God is a liar? I believe you left out verse 7 which illuminates what Christ has accomplished and exactly what covenant was _rendered idle_ *for believers*, i.e. it is still in place for the unbeliever.



> 2 Corinthians 3:7-9 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done **away*: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.



2673 katarge,w katargeo {kat-arg-eh'-o} 
Meaning: 1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative 1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency 1b) to deprive of force, influence, power 2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish 2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away 2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one 2c) to terminate all intercourse with one


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> I disagree w/ Dr. Clark here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism is not circumcision Scott? You are definitely wrong. And you ought to be careful calling sin what God has not implied. It is adding to the law.
Click to expand...


You're correct. Baptism is not circumcision. Apples and oranges. Baptism replaced circumcision much like the Lords day sabbath has replaced the Saturday sabbath. The Lords day sabbath is _one in seven_ and baptism, like circumcision is the NT sign God commands.

I believe the WCF calls it a 'GREAT SIN". Zipporah called Moses:

Exodus 4:25-26 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. 

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> I disagree w/ Dr. Clark here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism is not circumcision Scott? You are definitely wrong. And you ought to be careful calling sin what God has not implied. It is adding to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're correct. Baptism is not circumcision. Apples and oranges. Baptism replaced circumcision much like the Lords day sabbath has replaced the Saturday sabbath. The Lords day sabbath is _one in seven_ and baptism, like circumcision is the NT sign God commands.
> 
> I believe the WCF calls it a 'GREAT SIN". Zipporah called Moses:
> 
> Exodus 4:25-26 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
> 
> [Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


And I agree with you partially. I only believe that Regenerate forgiven people are included in the New Covenant. Those whose sins are washed away. Those are the ones who should have the sign of Baptism. It is nowhere called the seal of the Christian though. The Holy Spirit is our seal. When my son's confessed Christ unto salvation they received the sign. I did what I was commanded. Our difference is that you believe the New Covenant Member can be unregenerate. Sounds FV almost. Doesn't it? I don't buy that. We have been through this discussion before.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> I disagree w/ Dr. Clark here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refusal of parents to place the sign on their children does not make them, however, less than covenant children. It just makes them unbaptized covenant children. Some Baptists even recognize their children this way. That's why they "dedicate" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism is not circumcision Scott? You are definitely wrong. And you ought to be careful calling sin what God has not implied. It is adding to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're correct. Baptism is not circumcision. Apples and oranges. Baptism replaced circumcision much like the Lords day sabbath has replaced the Saturday sabbath. The Lords day sabbath is _one in seven_ and baptism, like circumcision is the NT sign God commands.
> 
> I believe the WCF calls it a 'GREAT SIN". Zipporah called Moses:
> 
> Exodus 4:25-26 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
> 
> [Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I agree with you partially. I only believe that Regenerate forgiven people are included in the New Covenant. Those whose sins are washed away. Those are the ones who should have the sign of Baptism. It is nowhere called the seal of the Christian though. The Holy Spirit is our seal. When my son's confessed Christ unto salvation they received the sign. I did what I was commanded. Our difference is that you believe the New Covenant Member can be unregenerate. Sounds FV almost. Doesn't it? I don't buy that. We have been through this discussion before.
Click to expand...


And please tell me how you know who are regenerate forgiven people? Because they say they are? Even the apostles didn't know that; Judas sat with them. In regards to what I believe; Did Peter call Judas brother? Demas? Ananias and Saphira? Yes. They were all unregenerate and part of the church, the church in which they were all referred to as brothers or sisters. Credo theology is so silly! Admit it, you all presume.



[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Uh Randy,
We discussed the word 'seal' a few pages back; please reread them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> And please tell me how you know who are regenerate forgiven people? Because they say they are? Even the apostles didn't know that; Judas sat with them. In regards to what I believe; Did Peter call Judas brother? Demas? Ananias and Saphira? Yes. They were all unregenerate and part of the church, the church in which they were all referred to as brothers or sisters. Credo theology is so silly! Admit it, you all presume.



I am just basing what a New Covenant member is on Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8. And if someone calls upon the name of the Lord he said he would save them. Now can God lie? I understand what you are saying about Judas and the others. Jesus always called Judas a Devil. He was never a New Covenant member. No I can not see the hearts of People but God can and He knows. We are just called to baptize disciples. We have discussed what a disciple is also. And I still believe it is someone who is cognizant of teaching. Someone who is able to follow. And I think you are overly adding to the law. Just as the Jews did. I am not in sin for not having baptized my children. It is a different covenant. It would have been sin for me to do it. Paedo's add to the law. They are so silly! Admit it. 





> Anyone reading this should know that Scott and I have done this before and we honestly care about each other. We are not mad at each other and we honestly would give to each other if we had any need. So please don't think this conversation is overly heated or that we are being unloving. I respect Scott and he has always been respectful of me.


----------



## Dan....

Scott,

Quick question for you:

The children of Israel, wondering in the desert for 40 years did not circumcise their children. Hence, when they were finally circumcised, all males between birth and 40 years old were uncircumcised. Was the uncircumcised 39 year old male a part of the covenant community?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Uh Randy,
> We discussed the word 'seal' a few pages back; please reread them.



I remember Scott. I redefined the parameters concerning what I said, remember. I was not pursuaded by your argument that baptism was a seal. 



> _originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> You are correct. I was thinking in a way of covenant sealing. But as I have stated and argued before I do not believe Baptism is circumsicion in the New Testament and it is never called that.



I believe the only Covenant seal we have in the New Covenant is that of the Holy Spirit. It is the only covenant seal that is mentioned as being applied to New Covenant believers. At least that is what I understand to be scriptural.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Scott,
> 
> Quick question for you:
> 
> The children of Israel, wondering in the desert for 40 years did not circumcise their children. Hence, when they were finally circumcised, all males between birth and 40 years old were uncircumcised. Was the uncircumcised 39 year old male a part of the covenant community?



Hey Dan,
The 39 year old male was in sin and should have been cast out of the community if I am not mistaken.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Scott,
> 
> Quick question for you:
> 
> The children of Israel, wondering in the desert for 40 years did not circumcise their children. Hence, when they were finally circumcised, all males between birth and 40 years old were uncircumcised. Was the uncircumcised 39 year old male a part of the covenant community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dan,
> The 39 year old male was in sin and should have been cast out of the community if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...


True. But then, that 39 year-old male was but one among the vast majority of an uncircumcised nation. (The only ones alive who would have been circumcised were above 40 years of age). However, these uncircumcised men were still the covenant people of God.

My point is this: Here we have a nation full of uncircumcised men, men without the sign of covenant inclusion, who were still in the covenant community.

Apllying that (from a paedo-baptistic perspective) to the unbaptized children of the baptist, it seems to me to be a posible argument for a paedo-baptist to consider the unbaptized children of his baptist brother as part of the covenant, even though his parents withhold the sign of inclusion. I'm curious what Scott thinks about this since he seems to be arguing that the unbaptized children of the baptist have no attachment to the covenant.

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## MW

> The children of Israel, wondering in the desert for 40 years...



Sounds like this thread!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> True. But then, that 39 year-old male was but one among the vast majority of an uncircumcised nation. (The only ones alive who would have been circumcised were above 40 years of age). However, these uncircumcised men were still the covenant people of God.



They were?

Joshua 5:3-9 3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. 4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. 5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised. 6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way. 8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole. 9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, *This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you.* Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.




> My point is this: Here we have a nation full of uncircumcised men, men without the sign of covenant inclusion, who were still in the covenant community.
> 
> Apllying that (from a paedo-baptistic perspective) to the unbaptized children of the baptist, it seems to me to be a posible argument for a paedo-baptist to consider the unbaptized children of his baptist brother as part of the covenant, even though his parents withhold the sign of inclusion. I'm curious what Scott thinks about this since he seems to be arguing that the unbaptized children of the baptist have no attachment to the covenant.



The parents are covenant breakers as well.........


----------



## Puritanhead

Scott, we're little heathen Baptists, but just humble enough to follow the apostolic teaching all the same. 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The parents are covenant breakers as well.........


 "If I thought it were wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up, and become what I believed to be right."
"”C.H. Spurgeon


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Randy,

With all due affection, what are you talking about? 

Irenaeus had a quite vigorous covenant theology as did Justin and even the very earliest apostolic writings such as the anonymous Mathetes use the covenant idea extensively. As I've mentioned in my brief history of covenant theology and as Lig Duncan (from whom I learned most of what I know about patristic covenant theology) showed in his PhD diss. the fathers used the "covenant" idea quite a bit and had a fairly developed covenant theology. Please read the even briefer version just out in the latest Table Talk or see the longer version on my website where I list a number of ways in which the Patristic theologians use covenant theology in their polemic against Judaism and immorality. Chiefly, however, the Fathers used the covenant of grace to show the continuity between Abraham and us and to show that Christians are the true Israel. 

As to Patristic baptismal practice, it is debated but there is considerable evidence for paedobaptism in the early church. 

There is certainly very little evidence for a "Baptist" ("that was then, this is now") hermeneutic among the Fathers especially since infant initiation into the covenant community (which is what we're really talking about here) was formally instituted under ABRAHAM and not Moses. 

If so, then infant inititation is not an Old Covenant practice, strictly speaking, since the Old Covenant was MOSAIC and not ABRAHAMIC (yes, I am shouting a little here as my Baptist brothers seem a little hard of hearing on this point). 

If infant initiation is ABRAHAMIC in origin, then it doesn't suffer the same fate as most things Mosaic. Yes, it's ADMINISTRATION has shadowy elements, and those shadowy elements (blood, restriction to males - in the nature of circumcision!) are fulfilled in Christ, the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3) and in Christ infant initiation into the covenant of grace (which does not create the relation but signifies and seals it) is shed of its shadowy, bloody, elements and transformed by the new covenant. 

Hence New Covenant infant initiation has substantial continuity with Abraham and administrative discontinuity. 

This way of approaching baptism was widely held among the Fathers -- indeed the "Baptist" argument from the Patristic literature seems fairly tenuous to me -- and reflected their covenant theology. 

Infant baptism was certainly not a medieval innovation.

rsc



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> In the same way the sabbath has changed without any illumination, by neccesary inferrence, the command to to place the sign upon the covenant child is there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the sabbath has changed to the Lord's Day, but the shift is easily seen in the New Testament as the Church is mentioned as meeting on the first day. And Historical writings point to it.
> 
> 
> The early historical writings have no precedent in covenant baptism. I read a good book by a few paedos called Baptism in the Early Church that confirmed covenant baptism as you know them didn't exist. Covenant Theology as we know it hasn't even been systematized until the Reformation. It is a new concept from what I have seen.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> True. But then, that 39 year-old male was but one among the vast majority of an uncircumcised nation. (The only ones alive who would have been circumcised were above 40 years of age). However, these uncircumcised men were still the covenant people of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were?
> 
> Joshua 5:3-9 3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. 4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. 5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised. 6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way. 8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole. 9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, *This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you.* Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this: Here we have a nation full of uncircumcised men, men without the sign of covenant inclusion, who were still in the covenant community.
> 
> Apllying that (from a paedo-baptistic perspective) to the unbaptized children of the baptist, it seems to me to be a posible argument for a paedo-baptist to consider the unbaptized children of his baptist brother as part of the covenant, even though his parents withhold the sign of inclusion. I'm curious what Scott thinks about this since he seems to be arguing that the unbaptized children of the baptist have no attachment to the covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents are covenant breakers as well.........
Click to expand...


Scott, 


Every male in Israel below the age of 40 was uncircumcised, and hence, per your position, no longer in the covenant community. Add to that, if as you said, the parents of those males were also covenant breakers, that cuts off the remainder of the Israelites (ages 40-60, less Caleb and Joshua). Hence, at the time of circumcision in Joshua 5, per what you have said, there wasn't a covenant community. - You might want to re-think this.

Also, the logical conclusion that your position must take in relation every baptist church in the world is scary. Are you really saying that every baptist church is outside the camp (seeing that both parents and children therein are all cut off from the covenant)? I must be missing something; you can't be saying that.


[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## travis

Ha, sorry to cause so much comotion on this topic. I posted this question on another board and it went up to ten pages overnight. I guess the original question should have been posed to paedobaptists only. I have read my fair share of paedo v. credo arguments and honestly did not want this to turn in to another one. 

Now, I know there are several views on how we should, well, view our children. Some say that we should not assume they are elect or not elect and teach them to be Christians. Others say that the promise of God is extended to our children and we should raise them and teach them as a member of God's elect, trusting in his Grace to be the God of us and our children.


----------



## travis

Some additional comments and support for the varying views from the other board...




> WCF 28.1 says, "I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him *a sign and seal of the covenant of grace*, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration*, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."
> 
> And because of the covenantal promises of God directed to believers we believe our children to be regenerate and entitled to the sign.



And here is what my pastor said in response to my original question of how should we view our baptised children...



> Travis,
> 
> The question of exactly "what happens" at baptism is certainly a mystery. We believe that something spiritually important happens at baptism, but it is difficult to express in words exactly what that is. We know from the analogy with circumcision that baptism places the child under all of the benefits of the covenant of grace and marks him out as a member of Christ's visible church on earth. Therefore, we believe he is to be treated as a believer unless/until he proves otherwise. To put it practically, we nurture our covenant children in the faith; we do not evangelize them. There are certainly spiritual markers in the life of the child and chances for him to articulate his faith - most notably when he is admitted to the Lord's Table.


----------



## jaybird0827

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> The children of Israel, wondering in the desert for 40 years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like this thread!
Click to expand...


----------



## BaptistCanuk

"Also, the logical conclusion that your position must take in relation every baptist church in the world is scary. Are you really saying that every baptist church is outside the camp (seeing that both parents and children therein are all cut off from the covenant)? I must be missing something; you can't be saying that."

This is one reason this Baptist is struggling to consider covenant theology. The New Testament implies a new covenant; that covenant being anyone who believes will be saved. It says nothing about baptized children of baptized parents will be saved. It is my understanding that God used the physical family in the OT to be a type of the "spiritual family" that will exist in the NT (new covenant). We enter this through faith individually, not through our parents baptizing us.

Hence the fact I have trouble believing covenant theology. I am open to it, but it is foreign to me.


----------



## Puritanhead

Hyper-paedo-baptism (n.): The practice of deeming the mode of baptism (i.e. credo-baptism) practiced by Jesus Christ and the apostles as unbiblical.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Randy,
> Please read the even briefer version just out in the latest Table Talk or see the longer version on my website where I list a number of ways in which the Patristic theologians use covenant theology in their polemic against Judaism and immorality. Chiefly, however, the Fathers used the covenant of grace to show the continuity between Abraham and us and to show that Christians are the true Israel.



Thanks Dr. Clark
I will read it. I had only understood that Covenant Theology as we know it had not been written about in it's deeper understanding by many before the Reformation. I am not saying that it wasn't understood by some but in a whole it was not a major teaching that permermeated the mind of theology as it does today. Guess what? It won't be the last time I will be wrong unfortunately. As I stated before I thought Covenant Theology truly came into its best understanding in the Reformation. Did it basically die after the Church Fathers?



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> As to Patristic baptismal practice, it is debated but there is considerable evidence for paedobaptism in the early church.
> 
> There is certainly very little evidence for a "Baptist" ("that was then, this is now") hermeneutic among the Fathers especially since infant initiation into the covenant community (which is what we're really talking about here) was formally instituted under ABRAHAM and not Moses.



I understand the difference between Moses and Abraham. And I understand the covenant made was with Abraham first. I am still thinking about it. I am not so sure it is applicable here. 

Have you ever looked at a booklet called Baptism in the Early Church? It is written by two Paedo's and they would disagree with your assesment concerning baptism in the early church. They even take Paedos to task for some supposed sloppy work with the Church Fathers. Baptism in the Early Church 

According to these two guys it is mentioned but not with a view of Covenant Theology in mind. It starts making it's appearance into the church as necessity required because of the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration or salvation. One had to be baptized to be cleansed from sin. 

I gotta go right now. Gotta get ready for Jr. High football game. Thanks for taking time with me Dr. Clark. If you have time, please give me a link to the Covenant Theology dissertation. It would be good for others to read it also.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Randy,

yes, I'm familiar with this work. I also realize that Baptists are excited about it as a vindication of their view. We have Baptist students on campus. 

I'm not a patrologist, but I have done some teaching in the Fathers and a fair bit of reading in patristic sources. 

Lig's diss. was done in Scotland. I don't know if it's generally available.

As to Abraham and Moses, these are facts aren't they? The question is what to do with these facts. Infant initiation began (formally anyway) under Abraham. 

Baptists, it seems to me, have a very difficult time recognizing that Abraham wasn't an "old covenant" figure strictly speaking. He belongs to the period of types and shadows, but that doesn't make him an "old covenant" figure.

If so, the infant initiation isn't an "old covenant" practice. 

Then the question comes: How is Abraham regarded in the NT? He's regarded as the father of New Covenant believers! 

Then comes the question we paedos keep asking, where is this pattern of covenant initiation, this substantial continuity between Abraham and New Covenant believers, overturned?

As to covenant theology, see the histories to which I referred. The short story is that certain aspects (continuity) continued, but failure to nail down justification unequivocally and realistic assumptions (God says what he says because we are what we are intrinsically) undermined the unformed covenant theology of the Fathers. The medievals had their own covenant theologies. The Reformation brought about a Reformation covenant theology.

Covenant theology isn't magic. Every epoch has had one. One's covenant theology is a redemptive-historical account of one's theology. Reformation theology had a different soteriology so it had different account of redemptive-history.

Have fun at the fb game.

rsc




> Thanks Dr. Clark
> I will read it. I had only understood that Covenant Theology as we know it had not been written about in it's deeper understanding by many before the Reformation. I am not saying that it wasn't understood by some but in a whole it was not a major teaching that permeated the mind of theology as it does today. Guess what? It won't be the last time I will be wrong unfortunately. As I stated before I thought Covenant Theology truly came into its best understanding in the Reformation. Did it basically die after the Church Fathers?



[Edited on 8-31-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Barnpreacher

Scott,

I'm curious what you mean when you say that I am a covenant breaker because I am a credobaptist that did not have my daughter baptized as an infant???

Does that mean that I and my family are "cut off" from the New Covenant? Is that not what happened in the Old Covenant? 

I would appreciate you to elaborate because that sounds like a pretty serious charge against a lot of born again baptists. A charge that demands your view of paedobaptism to be pretty near infallible.

However, after thinking about it, that really is the only logical conclusion one can reach if you take the paedo position. This thread may have just helped solve my own personal battle with the credo/paedo issue. 

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Barnpreacher]

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Barnpreacher]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> True. But then, that 39 year-old male was but one among the vast majority of an uncircumcised nation. (The only ones alive who would have been circumcised were above 40 years of age). However, these uncircumcised men were still the covenant people of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were?
> 
> Joshua 5:3-9 3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. 4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. 5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised. 6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way. 8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole. 9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, *This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you.* Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this: Here we have a nation full of uncircumcised men, men without the sign of covenant inclusion, who were still in the covenant community.
> 
> Apllying that (from a paedo-baptistic perspective) to the unbaptized children of the baptist, it seems to me to be a posible argument for a paedo-baptist to consider the unbaptized children of his baptist brother as part of the covenant, even though his parents withhold the sign of inclusion. I'm curious what Scott thinks about this since he seems to be arguing that the unbaptized children of the baptist have no attachment to the covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents are covenant breakers as well.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> 
> Every male in Israel below the age of 40 was uncircumcised, and hence, per your position, no longer in the covenant community. Add to that, if as you said, the parents of those males were also covenant breakers, that cuts off the remainder of the Israelites (ages 40-60, less Caleb and Joshua). Hence, at the time of circumcision in Joshua 5, per what you have said, there wasn't a covenant community. - You might want to re-think this.
> 
> Also, the logical conclusion that your position must take in relation every baptist church in the world is scary. Are you really saying that every baptist church is outside the camp (seeing that both parents and children therein are all cut off from the covenant)? I must be missing something; you can't be saying that.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-31-2006 by Dan....]
Click to expand...


Dan,
This fact should not frustrate you; you know well what Gods words says; There has always been a faithful remnant, even in these rebelious conditions. It only takes two to make a congregation! Do not dismiss the fact that there were single men above the age of forty whom remained consistant and faithful to Gods promises and commands. Single woman and widows as well.; they counted.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> Scott,
> 
> I'm curious what you mean when you say that I am a covenant breaker because I am a credobaptist that did not have my daughter baptized as an infant???
> 
> Does that mean that I and my family are "cut off" from the New Covenant? Is that not what happened in the Old Covenant?
> 
> I would appreciate you to elaborate because that sounds like a pretty serious charge against a lot of born again baptists. A charge that demands your view of paedobaptism to be pretty near infallible.
> 
> However, after thinking about it, that really is the only logical conclusion one can reach if you take the paedo position. This thread may have just helped solve my own personal battle with the credo/paedo issue.
> 
> [Edited on 8-31-2006 by Barnpreacher]
> 
> [Edited on 8-31-2006 by Barnpreacher]



Pastor,
Following a covenantal theme, it really is the only logical conclusion. It's all based upon our hermeneutic. Finally, a credo who gets it!

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> This thread may have just helped solve my own personal battle with the credo/paedo issue.



It sure has mine...


----------



## MW

How much Campbellism is inherent in the view that baptism is entrance into the covenant? Paedobaptist circles is the last place I expected to see this. David saw things in a better light, Ps. 22:10, "thou art my God from my mother's belly." Blessings!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> How much Campbellism is inherent in the view that baptism is entrance into the covenant? Paedobaptist circles is the last place I expected to see this. David saw things in a better light, Ps. 22:10, "thou art my God from my mother's belly." Blessings!



Matthew,
No one said that 'baptism is entrance'; however, baptism is a sign of the recipients faithfulness to Gods command and covenant. It is essentially a reflection of one's place in the covenant, i.e. what God has already accomplished. In other words, Gods people will hold faithful to the command to place the sign, come hell or high water. I'll add, David was circumcised! His parents were covenant keepers.

ch 23 WCF

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

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



[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ryan,
Perhaps, though, there is something not quite right about Scott Bushey's "logical" (apparently) extremity, some truth aspect that ameliorates the very hard position he seems to take.

Often when a P-Bpts takes a hard positon, or an unusual (historically) position, the Baptist is quick to declare "aha! someone is finally consistent!"

The interesting thing is, that the "hard-line" baptists of a century ago or more were the ones who totally rejected the membership and sacraments of Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., most of whom shared their essential soteriology, and many other theological convictions. But, because they weren't properly baptized, and belonged to those non-baptist churches... *many of them boldly questioned the non-baptist's salvation.*

Were those folks the "really consistent" baptists?

My other point is, that even if it is true _that if P-Bpts are correct, then it is necessarily a sin not to baptize,_ most of us comprehend the very real distinction between someone behaving a certain (wrong) way when they heartily believe its right, and someone like Moses who was under no illusions about his covenant duties and either ignored them or neglected them--and so fell under God's displeasure.

If Moses hadn't been convicted about his sin in this matter, he could not have apprehended the judgment of God in the matter.

Or, to put it differently, if I became convinced of Baptist practice about my duties under the New Covenant--namely to be baptized upon profession of my own faith--and I ignored or neglected a duty that I was convinced of, then the analogy of Moses-Zopporah would fit my case to a T, provided only that _objectively_ I was in fact sinning (i.e. that my convictions mirrored covenant reality).

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Ryan,
> Perhaps, though, there is something not quite right about Scott Bushey's "logical" (apparently) extremity, some truth aspect that ameliorates the very hard position he seems to take.
> 
> Often when a P-Bpts takes a hard positon, or an unusual (historically) position, the Baptist is quick to declare "aha! someone is finally consistent!"
> 
> The interesting thing is, that the "hard-line" baptists of a century ago or more were the ones who totally rejected the membership and sacraments of Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., most of whom shared their essential soteriology, and many other theological convictions. But, because they weren't properly baptized, and belonged to those non-baptist churches...
> 
> Were those folks the "really consistent" baptists?
> 
> My other point is, that even if it is true _that if P-Bpts are correct, then it is necessarily a sin not to baptize,_ most of us comprehend the very real distinction between someone behaving a certain (wrong) way when they heartily believe its right, and someone like Moses who was under no illusions about his covenant duties and either ignored them or neglected them--and so fell under God's displeasure.
> 
> If Moses hadn't been convicted about his sin in this matter, he could not have apprehended the judgment of God in the matter.
> 
> Or, to put it differently, if I became convinced of Baptist practice about my duties under the New Covenant--namely to be baptized upon profession of my own faith--and I ignored or neglected a duty that I was convinced of, then the analogy of Moses-Zopporah would fit my case to a T, provided only that _objectively_ I was in fact sinning (i.e. that my convictions mirrored covenant reality).



Bruce,
So ignorance is an excuse? God will grade those weaknesses on a curve? I disagree. As I have said, it cannot be both ways. This is exactly what is wrong with the church today; Where will you draw the line in regards to tolerance. God IS extreme.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> No one said that 'baptism is entrance'; however, baptism is a sign of the recipients faithfulness to Gods command and covenant. It is essentially a reflection of one's place in the covenant. In other words, Gods people will hold faithful to the command to place the sign, come hell or high water.



Scott,

It seems strange to me to make a positive sign an essential mark of a person's moral standing, especially since you concede that the moral standing exists where the positive sign has not been applied. There is definitely something amiss in seeing baptism the way the Judaizers saw circumcision. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of GRACE. The emphasis should be upon what God promises in baptism.

We are faulty through and through. This includes errors of judgment. There is such a category as sins of ignorance in the Christian scheme; and Christians should pray to be forgiven and kept from them. The forgiveness of our sins of ignorance does not depend upon us detecting and correcting them in time before death visits us, but upon the reconciling work of Christ which we have trusted in for salvation from ALL sin. And yet it should always be pointed out that our failure to detect and correct our sins of ignorance can bring us into much sorrow in terms of temporal judgements and loss of the comfortable presence of God.

I agree it is a great sin to neglect this ordinance, and therefore those who do so should be warned appropriately. Presbyterian churches need to weigh seriously how they act in relation to neglecters of this ordinance, warning the unruly and comforting the feeble-minded. But what does the Confession say? "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it" (WCF 28:5).

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Scott,
In my humble opinion, you are simply putting the cart before the horse, from the historical standpoint. You are confusing objective truth with truth that is apprehended. We think we are right. *They think they are right.* We both can't be right, but first we have to be convinced.

And pointing to Moses-Zipporah is not going to prove the connection between circumcision and baptism, and establish that NC children are proper recipients of the sign of covenant inclusion.

The point in all the cases is that people were refusing or neglecting the sign that they knew, as well as being objectively wrong about it. In the case of the nation, they were collectively guilty.

As well, I echo the "Campbelite" concerns of Matthew.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Ryan,
> Perhaps, though, there is something not quite right about Scott Bushey's "logical" (apparently) extremity, some truth aspect that ameliorates the very hard position he seems to take.
> 
> Often when a P-Bpts takes a hard positon, or an unusual (historically) position, the Baptist is quick to declare "aha! someone is finally consistent!"
> 
> The interesting thing is, that the "hard-line" baptists of a century ago or more were the ones who totally rejected the membership and sacraments of Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., most of whom shared their essential soteriology, and many other theological convictions. But, because they weren't properly baptized, and belonged to those non-baptist churches... *many of them boldly questioned the non-baptist's salvation.*
> 
> Were those folks the "really consistent" baptists?
> 
> My other point is, that even if it is true _that if P-Bpts are correct, then it is necessarily a sin not to baptize,_ most of us comprehend the very real distinction between someone behaving a certain (wrong) way when they heartily believe its right, and someone like Moses who was under no illusions about his covenant duties and either ignored them or neglected them--and so fell under God's displeasure.
> 
> If Moses hadn't been convicted about his sin in this matter, he could not have apprehended the judgment of God in the matter.
> 
> Or, to put it differently, if I became convinced of Baptist practice about my duties under the New Covenant--namely to be baptized upon profession of my own faith--and I ignored or neglected a duty that I was convinced of, then the analogy of Moses-Zopporah would fit my case to a T, provided only that _objectively_ I was in fact sinning (i.e. that my convictions mirrored covenant reality).
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Contra_Mundum]



Very good post. I don't know how common it was a century or two ago for Baptists to question non-Baptists salvation, although I'm sure you probably wouldn't have to look too hard to find an example then or even now in some cases. But it was quite common for Baptists then to regard paedobaptist Protestant churches as no church at all since the ministers (going all the way back to the magisterial reformers who had only RC baptism) and members were not considered to have valid baptisms. Even if a paedobaptist was immersed somewhere, if was not performed in a properly ordered Baptist church, it was regarded as invalid ("Alien" immersion). And Baptists were the most ardent practicioners of close communion. There has been a great change in the majority of Baptist churches over the past century in that regard.


----------



## Barnpreacher

This is a tough thread for me. I'm battling with the credo/paedo position and now this is throwing a whole new angle on it for me. If what Scott is saying is true then all non-paedo's are covenant breakers and cut off from the New Covenant. If they, by grace, do not change! Again, I say that if that kind of implication is made, one better be banking their all on the paedo position being infallible.

I can understand that, but I'm not fully persuaded. Scott said, "God is extreme." Yes, God is extreme. But you take someone like Augustine. He believed that infant baptism cleansed from original guilt. But yet, we as reformers like to point to him as one of our "heroes of the faith." But if you take what he taught on paedobaptism then it borders on a false gospel that Paul taught about in Galatians 1.

Is it consistent to say that credo baptists are cut off from the New Covenant because of their persuasion, but then to overlook baptismal regeneration by a "hero of the faith?"


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> In my humble opinion, you are simply putting the cart before the horse, from the historical standpoint. You are confusing objective truth with truth that is apprehended. We think we are right. *They think they are right.* We both can't be right, but first we have to be convinced.
> 
> And pointing to Moses-Zipporah is not going to prove the connection between circumcision and baptism, and establish that NC children are proper recipients of the sign of covenant inclusion.
> 
> The point in all the cases is that people were refusing or neglecting the sign that they knew, as well as being objectively wrong about it. In the case of the nation, they were collectively guilty.
> 
> As well, I echo the "Campbelite" concerns of Matthew.



Again Bruce, I ask, is ignorance an excuse? Israelites that were not 'convinced' were not excused and were rightly 'cut off' for diobeying God. As far as the Cambelite comment, my previous posts should clarify that, which I assume you read. Having said that, I'd wish you'd climb off the straw horse you've climed upon.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Bruce,

I appreciate your biblical knowledge on things, so I will ask you this question. In light of where this thread is going what is your view of the credo position? Like you said, paedo's think they are right and credo's likewise. Both can't be right. This is where I see where Scott is coming from, though not fully persuaded of his position. Ultimately he is right. If the paedo position is the correct position then credo's are covenant breakers. In this matter God had as much grace under the O.T. to cover the covenant breakers as he does in the New Covenant. But they were cut off. How would God view covenant breaking any different in the New Covenant than he did under the old?

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Barnpreacher]


----------



## Dan....

Scott,

In the end you are commiting the same error that our baptist brothers are commiting. Just as our baptist brothers do not consider their children covenantally holy; so also, you do not consider baptists to be covenantally holy. Please think twice about this. If you are wrong about this, then you are calling unclean that which God has made holy by the blood of His Son.

Acts 10:5 - What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> Bruce,
> 
> I appreciate your biblical knowledge on things, so I will ask you this question. In light of where this thread is going what is your view of the credo position? Like you said, paedo's think they are right and credo's likewise. Both can't be right. This is where I see where Scott is coming from, though not fully persuaded of his position. Ultimately he is right. If the paedo position is the correct position then credo's are covenant breakers. In this matter God had as much grace under the O.T. to cover the covenant breakers as he does in the New Covenant. But they were cut off. How would God view covenant breaking any different in the New Covenant than he did under the old?
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Barnpreacher]



Ryan,
For the record, most Presbyterians see the NC inaugerated in Genesis ch 3, consumated @ calvary's cross.


----------



## Puritanhead

sits and watches the show.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Scott,
> 
> In the end you are commiting the same error that our baptist brothers are commiting. Just as our baptist brothers do not consider their children covenantally holy; so also, you do not consider baptists to be covenantally holy. Please think twice about this. If you are wrong about this, then you are calling unclean that which God has made holy by the blood of His Son.
> 
> Acts 10:5 - What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Dan....]



Absolutely Dan! I am. Thats the point. It cannot be both ways; one of us are dead wrong. Gods word warns of being cut off for witholding the sign. The parent that would withold the sign MUST be a covenant breaker; whether or not he agree's with this assessment is irrelevent. God is not to be mocked; He said it, not I. 

I will just add this: If God has made ammends for this, why warn us in His scriptures? If God is grading upon a curve of knowledge, we have larger issues to deal with and we must therefore open the flood gates on tolerance.


----------



## Barnpreacher

So, the new covenant is simply the C of Grace in most Presbyterians eyes? Hence, there is no old and new covenant, just a C of Works and a C of Grace?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> So, the new covenant is simply the C of Grace in most Presbyterians eyes? Hence, there is no old and new covenant, just a C of Works and a C of Grace?



Correct.


----------



## Barnpreacher

O.k. I can't remember how to do the quote thing in this board, but Scott said that God is not to be mocked. If God is graing on a curve then we have to open the flood gates of tolerance. This goes back to my point on Augustine. He believed that infant baptism washed away original sin, correct? Why are we tolerant of that kind of heresy?


----------



## Barnpreacher

And I am honestly not trying to build a straw horse argument here by shifting gears to Augustine. I simply don't understand how a paedo can be consistent in believing that baptist's are covenant breakers and yet look to someone like Augustine as a hero of the faith.

I feel as if I have been called out on the carpet as a credobaptist. That is not something that I take lightly. If I am wrong I desperately want God to show me. That is one reason I have been studying the issue so deeply. I personally don't have a problem with being called out on the carpet because it causes me to further examine what I believe. I just have never dealt with the extreme view that baptist's are covenant breakers that are cut off because of their credo position. Very interesting.


----------



## crhoades

Matthew 5:17-20 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. *19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.* 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 

Might this have relevance on this topic? In the OT, if someone relaxed the command to circumcise their babies or in the NT if someone does not baptise theirs, can these people not be called least *in the kingdom of heaven* instead of *not* in the kingdom of heaven? Or is this a misapplication of this passage?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Might this have relevance on this topic? In the OT, if someone relaxed the command to circumcise their babies or in the NT if someone does not baptise theirs, can these people not be called least *in the kingdom of heaven* instead of *not* in the kingdom of heaven? Or is this a misapplication of this passage?



David Dickson in loc.: "Christ's mind is, that whosoever he be that shall in his practice reject the yoke of any one of these commandments of the moral law, which men account least of, and shall defend his practice, teaching that men may without guiltiness break the same, shall be called and accounted of by God as the least (that is, a man of no place or room) in the kingdom of grace and glory; or he shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven as it is said in verse 20."

The subsequent explanation in verse 20, "for I say unto you," is crucial to correctly understanding what our Lord means by "least" in verse 19.

Besides, Scott's contention is not about moral but positive faults; wherein Christ has taught us explicitly to learn what it means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." All of the NT lists which exclude men from the kingdom of God do so on the basis of immorality, not nonconformity to positive institutions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> So, the new covenant is simply the C of Grace in most Presbyterians eyes? Hence, there is no old and new covenant, just a C of Works and a C of Grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...



The CoR is the "Counsel of Peace" spoken about in Scripture.
The CoG is the outworking of that Covenant in time with God's people.
The CoW is the covenant made with Adam, and all.

There are three main covenant, though sometimes (like Turretin) the CoR and CoG are simply one covenant divided into two distinct parts.

All of the "earthly" outworkings in time are simply progressions of the ONE covenant of grace, culminating in the renewed covenant under Jesus Christ who fulfilled what what promised in the everlasting covenant to the patriarchs.

Westminster said it this way:

HEAD II. 
The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. 

I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began. 

II. The sum of the covenant of redemption, is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fullness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings. 

III. For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.

"I feel as if I have been called out on the carpet as a credobaptist. That is not something that I take lightly. If I am wrong I desperately want God to show me. That is one reason I have been studying the issue so deeply. I personally don't have a problem with being called out on the carpet because it causes me to further examine what I believe. I just have never dealt with the extreme view that baptist's are covenant breakers that are cut off because of their credo position. Very interesting."

I don't see how baptistic thought can send anyone anywhere else than simply breaking what God specifically commanded.

God specifically commanded the covenant sign to be placed on the children. 

God specifically instructed His people about the importance of the covenant sign, so much so that those who did not do so broke covenant with Him.

God has never rescinded that command at any time, and in any way. 

Christ himself said that the Kingdom of heaven "belongs" to little children, using the same covenant formula that God used with Abraham, also quoted in Acts 2.


[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Barnpreacher

Matthew,

It seems to me that I have read either on your Puritan Mind or monergism.com that you have just recently (three or four years ago?) made the switch from the credo to paedo position. Forgive me if I am wrong about that. So, do you believe that until you made that switch that you would have been cut off from God's covenant in spite of the fact that you knew you were born again? Or maybe I'm missing this thing. What would have happened to you if you would have died under the credo persuasion? Are we talking about being cut off as in you think you would have died and went to hell? In spite of the fact that you had been bought by the Blood of Jesus Christ? Then the issue is all about credo/paedo baptism. Doesn't make sense to me.

Were you a covenant breaker until you made that switch from credo to paedo? Would you have died and gone to hell if you would have never made that switch?

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Barnpreacher]


----------



## satz

> Can an elect person be cut off? No; the elect will abide by Gods covenant. What about those in error? That person will be refined by Gods word and eventually come to the truth about God being a covenant keeping God and correct the error and place the sign upon their children.



Scott, 

Doesn't this seem to amount to practical fatalism? You seem to be saying that God will either not allow his elect to be in error about baptism or he will definitely recover them from their error before death. If this is the case, what makes baptism or failure to baptise different from all the other commands or sins in the bible? Will God definitely recover his people from every single one of their sins before they die?


----------



## Barnpreacher

Mark is absolutely on the money. 

This thread is telling me that men like Charles Spurgeon broke covenant with God and died cut off from God. And it's telling me that men like John Piper and John MacArthur are on their way to dying the same way. And myself for that matter. So, if I don't get this baptism thing right then I am non-elect?

All non-covenant theology, credo baptists are breaking covenant with God and are on our way to hell. Am I misconstruing this? Because I am sure trying not to.

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Barnpreacher]


----------



## MW

To what degree is Exod. 4:24-26 normative for all covenant signs? It should be pointed out that the Lord did not meet to kill "him" (whether Moses or his son is not stated) before this time. Why now?

It is surely important that in the previous verse the Lord had said that Moses is to tell Pharaoh, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn," vv. 22, 23.

Quite clearly the encounter with "him" (Moses or Moses' son) taught the significant lesson that Israel was to be the Lord's son, and that it was through blood-shedding that the nation would escape death (which we see accomplished in Passover). Hence, yes, the pericope teaches that it is a sin to neglect the Lord's positive institutions, and dire consequences can follow such neglect. We see this in the chastening of the Corinthians because of their abuse of the Lord's supper, a chastening for the purpose that they should not be condemned with the world. Yet, more importantly, the pericope teaches a significant lesson, that the redemption of God's people and adoption as His sons can only be accomplished through blood-shedding.

Concerning the normativity of Exod. 4:24-26 to the administration of baptism, there are clearly "typical" elements in the narrative which make it singular, and so discontinuous with the Lord's normal dealings with His people. Calvin points out that it does not provide a precedent for women to baptise. I would also suggest, given its typical redemptive significance , and the fact that Moses was not encountered before this time, that it does not provide a precedent for concluding that failure to administer the ordinance of baptism results in exclusion from the covenant and its blessings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just some observations from a friend of mine and myself.

The New Covenant was inaugurated at the cross (Luke 22:20 ), and is the implementation of the Covenant of Grace which is everlasting. The Old Covenant is not part of the C of G, but was added (Gal 3:16-18 ). Gen 3:15, if it is a covenant at all, is a covenant of promise (Eph 2:12 ).
The above is some observations from a friend. I am contemplating them.

Question 31 from the Larger Catechism of the WCF.

Q. With whom was the Covenant of Grace made?
A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

Where are all the unsaved but baptized babies in the Covenant of Grace! I know, they are apostate. I believe this is why the Federal Vision is struggling so hard. Especially with who is elect and who is in covenant.

Just some observations....

1. There is no mention of infant water baptism in the Bible. 

2. There is no instance of infant water baptism in the Bible!

3. There is no command to baptize infants in the Bible. 

4. There are no regulations regarding infant baptism in the Bible. 

5. Baptism is repeatedly tied up with belief and discipleship in the Bible (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37 ). 

6. Circumcision and baptism are not the same thing and nor is one the replacement for the other. When the early Christians met to discuss circumcision, baptism was not so much as mentioned (Acts 15 ). 

7. The New Covenant is 'not according to' the Old Covenant (Heb 8:9ff). The specific difference mentiond is that in the New Covenant, everyone knows the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8)Therefore the Covenant sign should be placed only on those who profess to know the Lord.



[Edited on 9-1-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> To what degree is Exod. 4:24-26 normative for all covenant signs? It should be pointed out that the Lord did not meet to kill "him" (whether Moses or his son is not stated) before this time. Why now?
> 
> It is surely important that in the previous verse the Lord had said that Moses is to tell Pharaoh, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn," vv. 22, 23.
> 
> Quite clearly the encounter with "him" (Moses or Moses' son) taught the significant lesson that Israel was to be the Lord's son, and that it was through blood-shedding that the nation would escape death (which we see accomplished in Passover). Hence, yes, the pericope teaches that it is a sin to neglect the Lord's positive institutions, and dire consequences can follow such neglect. We see this in the chastening of the Corinthians because of their abuse of the Lord's supper, a chastening for the purpose that they should not be condemned with the world. Yet, more importantly, the pericope teaches a significant lesson, that the redemption of God's people and adoption as His sons can only be accomplished through blood-shedding.
> 
> Concerning the normativity of Exod. 4:24-26 to the administration of baptism, there are clearly "typical" elements in the narrative which make it singular, and so discontinuous with the Lord's normal dealings with His people. Calvin points out that it does not provide a precedent for women to baptise. I would also suggest, given its typical redemptive significance , and the fact that Moses was not encountered before this time, that it does not provide a precedent for concluding that failure to administer the ordinance of baptism results in exclusion from the covenant and its blessings.



Matthew,
The portion of the WCF that you provided was not meant to be practically applied to people whom were/are rebelliously rejecting Gods command to place the sign upon themselves or children. We all know that in the instances where an infant of a covenant family died upon birth, prior to baptism, that that would not effect his position in Christ, granted he was one of the elect; the same for an adult whom confessed Christ, yet did not make it to his baptism for whatever circumstances prior to his demise. 

In regards to your post above. The question remains as to what exactly 'cut off' means; as well, the extent of 'reproach' spoken of in Joshua that was 'rolled away'?

One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:

Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Thats a big problem.........

Judges shows that to be uncircumcised is unclean:

Judges 15:18 18 And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised? 

Isaiah 52:1. Arise, arise, put on thy strength, O Sion, put on the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, the city of the Holy One: for henceforth the uncircumcised, and unclean shall no more pass through thee. 

28:10. Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God. 




[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ivan

I am, in fact, enjoying this thread. I didn't think I was I first! As I think about it, I would be disappointed if my Presbyterian brethren didn't stand up for what they believe. How could they anything else! The same is true of we who are Baptists. 

God bless us all!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Just some observations from a friend of mine and myself.
> 
> The New Covenant was inaugurated at the cross (Luke 22:20 ), and is the implementation of the Covenant of Grace which is everlasting. The Old Covenant is not part of the C of G, but was added (Gal 3:16-18 ). Gen 3:15, if it is a covenant at all, is a covenant of promise (Eph 2:12 ).



The new covenant was inaugerated in Gen 3 and consumated at Calvary. 




> Question 31 from the Larger Catechism of the WCF.
> 
> Q. With whom was the Covenant of Grace made?
> A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.
> 
> Where all the unsaved but baptized babies are in the Covenant of Grace! I know they are apostate. I believe this is why the Federal Vision is struggling so hard. Especially with who is elect and who is in covenant.



They are in the external covenant; the visible church. I ask you, if you had asked Abraham if Ishamel was in or out of the covenant he would have looked at you like you were mad. There has never been a positive command to KNOW who is or is not elect. God knows His elect. Our responsibility is to have faith and be obedient.

Hebrews 11:1-2 KJV Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.



> Just some observations....
> 
> 1. There is no mention of infant water baptism in the Bible.
> 
> 2. There is no instance of infant water baptism in the Bible!
> 
> 3. There is no command to baptize infants in the Bible.
> 
> 4. There are no regulations regarding infant baptism in the Bible.



It being a norm for the covenanter, i.e. their children were always included; God is a God of families, there is no positive command abrogating this principle. Why have you abrogated it?



> 5. Baptism is repeatedly tied up with belief and discipleship in the Bible (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37 ).



You've misunderstood the great commision. The reason you see no children ever baptised in scripture would lead you to one of two paths: 1) Baptism is for adults only, 2) thinking like a Jew and we all know Jesus was Jewish, it would be abberant to exclude the children; they already had the mark upon them, hence, you never hear anything about it because it had already been placed. 



> 6. Circumcision and baptism are not the same thing and nor is one the replacement for the other. When the early Christians met to discuss circumcision, baptism was not so much as mentioned (Acts 15 ).



You are again correct; they are not the same thing; apples and oranges. However, both are signs/fruits. 



> 7. The New Covenant is 'not according to' the Old Covenant (Heb 8:9ff). The specific difference mentiond is that in the New Covenant, everyone knows the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8)Therefore the Covenant sign should be placed only on those who profess to know the Lord.



I ask you again, how do you know who knows the Lord; even the apostles did not know this. Judas was a disciple; as was Ananias and Saphira and Demas.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I want to add: If Acts is an historic account of Christ church and how it culminated, why is it that we never see something so typical to our day happening, i.e. "and on the Lords day, Randy's son Josh came to faith at the young age of 12 years old and was baptised"? Why do we never see anything like this occuring?


----------



## bob

Scott,

I suspect the answer to your question from the credobaptist's position is that credobaptists don't view water baptism as the intrinsic means of entrance into the new covenant. All those who profess Christ must be baptized, but this does not mean that all those who are baptized are truly members of the New Covenant. Paedobaptism appears to ignore the discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. While I personally do subscribe to the construct of the Covenant of Grace, I do not view the New Covenant as intrinsically the same as the Old. In Jeremiah, we read that the New Covenant is a covenant "not like the covenant which I made with their fathers."

When one considers the New Testament Scriptures, one observes that the fleshly circumcision that was made with hands is not replaced by a sprinkling of water, but rather the fleshly circumcision of the heart. It is the emphasis of the work in the heart that differentiates between the Old and NEw Covenants. Thus the credobaptist views the work of the Spirit of God breathing the breath of life into our wicked, depraved heart to be the work of circumcision in Christ. Water baptism signifies and symbolizes the work of grace previously performed by the Spirit of God.

I have never quite understood the paedobaptist's leaning upon Peter's message in Acts 2, for while they often quote "and the promise shall be to you and your children" as providing evidence that believer's children are by lineage members of the New Covenant and thus worthy recipient's of water baptism, they omit quoting that Peter goes on to quote "and to all that are afar off." The promise, however, whether consider the you, the children, and those that are afar is prefaced by "as many as the Lord shall call." The practical outworking of this work is evidenced in verse 41 "and those that received the word were baptized."

I have personally underwent many theological shifts over the past decade and while I dearly love my paedobaptist brothers, I have yet to be convinced of the p-tist position. My children are very soon to admitted to water baptism, for they profess faith in Christ. While I feel a pang of sorrow that you regard me and my children as among those cut off from the covenant grace of God, I just cannot allow your rhetoric to deter me from what I perceive to be the SCriptural teaching on the subject. If at the end of the day I discover that paedobaptism is the true view of baptism, I simply pray that God's love and mercy is far more encompassing that your own and that God's love will cover my sin of ignorance.


----------



## Barnpreacher

I would like to see Joshua's question answered. To those that are implying that credo baptists are "cut off" what exactly does that mean? You can't say you don't know for sure or you wouldn't say it. Please, explain your thoughts on what it means when you say we're cut off.

Ivan - I have enjoyed this thread too, and I also believe that our Presbyterian brothers should be fully persuaded in what they belive. What I don't enjoy being told is that I am "cut off" from God's covenant because of my credo position.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> I would like to see Joshua's question answered. To those that are implying that credo baptists are "cut off" what exactly does that mean? You can't say you don't know for sure or you wouldn't say it. Please, explain your thoughts on what it means when you say we're cut off.
> 
> Ivan - I have enjoyed this thread too, and I also believe that our Presbyterian brothers should be fully persuaded in what they belive. What I don't enjoy being told is that I am "cut off" from God's covenant because of my credo position.



Just for clarification:

When you said "those" it should be singular. Only one person here has said that baptists are cut off from the covenant for not baptizing their children.

The rest of us, though we do believe it to be sin to not baptize one's children, yet we have not implied that baptists are necessarily severed from the church as has the one individual.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Dan,

Unfortunately, I think there are others that subscribe to this thought.



> _Originally posted by C.Matthew McMahon_
> 
> I don't see how baptistic thought can send anyone anywhere else than simply breaking what God specifically commanded.
> 
> God specifically commanded the covenant sign to be placed on the children.
> 
> God specifically instructed His people about the importance of the covenant sign, so much so that those who did not do so broke covenant with Him.
> 
> God has never rescinded that command at any time, and in any way.
> 
> Christ himself said that the Kingdom of heaven "belongs" to little children, using the same covenant formula that God used with Abraham, also quoted in Acts 2.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> Matthew,
> 
> It seems to me that I have read either on your Puritan Mind or monergism.com that you have just recently (three or four years ago?) made the switch from the credo to paedo position. Forgive me if I am wrong about that. So, do you believe that until you made that switch that you would have been cut off from God's covenant in spite of the fact that you knew you were born again? Or maybe I'm missing this thing. What would have happened to you if you would have died under the credo persuasion? Are we talking about being cut off as in you think you would have died and went to hell? In spite of the fact that you had been bought by the Blood of Jesus Christ? Then the issue is all about credo/paedo baptism. Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Were you a covenant breaker until you made that switch from credo to paedo? Would you have died and gone to hell if you would have never made that switch?
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Barnpreacher]



Great questions. These are hard to answer based on the eternal decree of God since I am not privy to God's eternal counsel.

1) God said that those who break covenant go to hell. You have to take up the passages on apostasy with God, not hypothetical questions as to whether I would have gone to hell or not, or what I thought about my salvation at that time. I could answer by saying that SINCE He demonstrated the truth to me, that now, as a result of repenting, I am no longer breaking His covenant with me. Christ died for those he leads back to the Word to obey it and follow it with all thier heart, soul, mind and strength. He makes them willing. Here are a couple of passages that deal with true worship of the One True Covenant God of the Scriptures:

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

Leviticus 20:5 then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.

Numbers 15:30-31 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.' "

Psalm 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth.

Psalm 109:13 Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

Ezekiel 37:11 They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!'

Mark 9:42 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 

Luke 20:18 "Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

Jeremiah 2:19 Your evil will chastise you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God; *the fear of me is not in you*, declares the Lord GOD of hosts.

Its far too often that Christians look to God as thier _girlfriend_, and have no fear of Him before them. 

Isaiah 64:9 Be not so terribly angry, O LORD, and remember not iniquity forever. Behold, please look, we are all your people.

2) If I am a follow of Christ, I would keep His commands to the best of my knowledge and ability, thought that does not excuse blatant sin.

3) If I *willfully reject the truth*, how could I be saved?

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

4) Posing the question as you did seems to imply that you are looking to have an excuse to hold to a position that would be willful sin if covenant theology is correct. That is the road of apostasy if you hold to it.

See John Owen's masterful work on Apostasy. There are two ways to consider it - one on the road to being apostate, and one that reach apostasy. This is where we who are in covenant with God must tread carefully before Him.

This is not over and against grace, but compliments it. The retorical question is answered by us in our actions posed as Christ's queestion - 

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"

Its interesting to me that Westminster said that it was a "great sin" to break covenant with God and reject the covenant signs as God intended since they represent, sign, seal and signfy SALVATION IN Christ.

My position is theirs:

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c

a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. "¢ b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. "¢ c. Acts 8:13, 23.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> Dan,
> 
> Unfortunately, I think there are others that subscribe to this thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C.Matthew McMahon_
> 
> I don't see how baptistic thought can send anyone anywhere else than simply breaking what God specifically commanded.
> 
> God specifically commanded the covenant sign to be placed on the children.
> 
> God specifically instructed His people about the importance of the covenant sign, so much so that those who did not do so broke covenant with Him.
> 
> God has never rescinded that command at any time, and in any way.
> 
> Christ himself said that the Kingdom of heaven "belongs" to little children, using the same covenant formula that God used with Abraham, also quoted in Acts 2.
Click to expand...


Yes, , Early church, the Reformation, and Puritan theology, not to mention the Scriptures.


----------



## Barnpreacher

This isn't even about justification by faith alone. This is about credo/paedo baptism. Not saying it's not an important issue, but if what you're saying is true then you were unregenerate until you made that switch to paedobaptism. There is no other way around it. It is hard for me to understand how you "bore the fruit of the Spirit" believing the credo position, but were unregenerate? Again, doesn't make any sense. 

I wasn't asking that question to excuse any position that I hold to. That was an incorrect assumption on your part. If I am on the road to apostasy then I pray God would reveal that to me.

And if I held to the paedobaptism position as many of the reformers believed it, I would be more concerned about the Augustine's who believed that it cleansed from original guilt than I would about my credo brothers. But nobody has responded to that point as of yet.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Take the Confession's explanation.

Q165: What is Baptism? 
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] *of remission of sins by his blood*,[3] and *regeneration* by his Spirit;[4] of *adoption*,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8] 

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4


There is no respecter of persons here. This is the what the sign of the covenant "does". Not Romanism, or intrnsic regeneration. Augustine (and even Calvin on points) saw "regeneration" as a process and not as an instantaneous act as later define more properly.


----------



## Barnpreacher

It may be a sign and seal of those things, but if the child does not profess faith in Jesus Christ when they come to age then their infant baptism meant NOTHING.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Josh,
Opinions aside, I must rely on the scriptures to support what I already have said. As well, Gods elect cannot fall away. Take that for what it's worth. 

Dan,
Having read my pastor's thorough treatment of the doctrine, to assume I mean anything otherwise is interesting to say the least. Possibly you could read through the thread again? By the way, you may call me Scott. Unless of course you prefer not too.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> It may be a sign and seal of those things, but if the child does not profess faith in Jesus Christ when they come to age then their infant baptism meant NOTHING.



Actually, it becomes a curse to them. There is always blessing OR curse depending upon the outcome.

So it DEFINITELY means SOMETHING. The question is "what?"

Because - its not THEM that makes it effectual for blessing or cursing, but GOD. Covenant signs matter to Him.

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Barnpreacher

I was implying that their baptism meant nothing to them concerning their justification.

Is the curse that comes upon one that neglects their covenant baptism any different than the curse of the non-elect? Are they not essentially one and the same? The curse for the non-elect is an eternal separation from a Holy and Righteous God, in a lake of fire. Whether they had been infant baptized or not. If I were persuaded of paedobaptism then I would say the fact that they would neglect their covenant baptism is a sin, but is made up of the larger problem that by nature they are a sinner and this is what causes eternal separation from God.

Was Korah dying and going to hell any different from an unbelieving Gentile who dies and goes to hell today?


----------



## tdowns

*Why allowed on board....*

Based on this thread, and what Scott is saying, I would think that this would be a divisive enough issue to not allow Baptists in fellowship on this board. What is the reasoning's behind fellowship with those that are sinning against God and that are cut-off?

--I DON'T agree with that myself--It seems to be an in-house discussion to me, BUT, based on what I'm reading, if the owners take the stance that Baptists are cut off; why fellowship with them and allow them as acceptable on this board? Are you not giving credibility to something you obviously find very offensive? 

I'm not sure where I stand, and I enjoy the debate/discussions and am leaning heavily on going to baptise my kids ASAP....so for this reason alone, to bring truth to others, I see a great need to keep the unity, and allow those with differing beliefs in these areas and in others stay part of the discussion.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Josh,
> Opinions aside, I must rely on the scriptures to support what I already have said. As well, Gods elect cannot fall away. Take that for what it's worth.
> 
> Dan,
> Having read my pastor's thorough treatment of the doctrine, to assume I mean anything otherwise is interesting to say the least. Possibly you could read through the thread again? By the way, you may call me Scott. Unless of course you prefer not too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are Baptists who never submit to the belief elect? I sincerely want to know if being "cut off" results in eternal damnation of the Credo who doesn't baptize his baby.
Click to expand...


Josh (and others), I think a key thing to keep in-mind here is the distinction between the external/visible covenant and its internal/invisible sense. Dr. Clark has some excellent treatment of that in his lecture, "Why Baptism, and What Does It Do?" as well as the expanded article in CPJ2. (The audio lecture was available on WSC's site, but I can't find a working link now. I can send you the file if you want.)


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Barnpreacher_
> Ivan - I have enjoyed this thread too, and I also believe that our Presbyterian brothers should be fully persuaded in what they belive. What I don't enjoy being told is that I am "cut off" from God's covenant because of my credo position.



I agree.


----------



## B.J.

I have been following the thread for the first 3 pages. I got a little tired of reading it while looking for an answer to my question. So here it goes.....Let me get this straight...


Paedo believe that Baptism replaces circumsicion and Credo believe that because of the "newness" of the New Covenant, the "Sign" is given only to professed believers?


Earlier it was said that Baptist assume regeneration has taken place, and proceed with Baptism. My question is..What else can they do if they believe that it is for Believers only? Do we know Believers before they profess? No. It seems to me that the paedo view allows for potentially un-elect persons to be considered as part of the Church. Which circumcision did as well so that proves little. Baptist however, allow for a profession of faith, and presumably, based on that profession, have no good reason to assume that said person is regenerate. Hence, Baptism is treated as a little more sacret. As opposed to just sprinkling some water and hoping that one day a profession will come, or else they will be excommunicated. The problem I have as a Credo is when children are Baptised because of there profession. Some people find it hard to Baptise a professing child because they arent sure that regeneration has taken place, and they want to be sure it has. However, it is a little arbitrary, because a 30 year old can profess faith and the same people just assume that because the person is older they will understand more about what is going on. Which makes me wonder if Baptist are placing to much emphasis on a "sign." As though it has some kind of magical power. Both Cedo and Paedo have cases of Baptised persons who fall away from the faith so perhaps it is just a "sign" in which no consideration should be given as to whether or not regenration has taken place.

Perhaps something should be said about the "Newness" or the New Covenant, and how it will be a better one than the Old. I am fairly new to Covenant Theology (about 3 years), and my view on Baptism is colored by the Reformed Baptist church I attend. I am interested in understanding opposing views. My last question is...What was the sign of the covenant to old testament women?


----------



## B.J.

> Baptist however, allow for a profession of faith, and presumably, based on that profession, have no good reason to assume that said person is regenerate.



I meant to say....Have no good reason to assume that siad person is not regenerate.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Is the curse that comes upon one that neglects their covenant baptism any different than the curse of the non-elect?



Absolutely. This goes into the understanding one has on the doctrine of hell.

Christ said:

Matthew 23:14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive *greater condemnation*."

We know that hell has "degrees of punishment."

As a result, those with more light, or those who stumble others, will recieve greater condemnation.

That is why it is BETTER for a "stumbler" to die now, than later since he heaps up more judgment.

Matthew 18:6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, *it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea*.

Hard words by the Savior.

For a full treatment of the doctrine of hell and or endless punishment, and the degrees thereof, I'd suggest "Eternity Wieghed in the Balance" by me, or Christopher Love "Works", Volume 1, which holds 10 sermons on hell. (Edwards thought his work was one of the best on hell.) Also, "Jonathan Edwards on heaven and Hell" by Soli Deo Gloria Publications is excellent too.



> Paedo believe that Baptism replaces circumsicion



No. Christ is our circumcision. Circumcision, like baptism, is a sign of regeneration. Such prefigures are fulfilled by Christ (cutting) and now continue under His blood split, and now we are washed (baptism), but still signifying regeneration.

Colossians 2:11, "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..."

Philippians 3:3, "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh..."



[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## VanVos

Okay my view of the covenants

Cov of Redemption (eternity past)
Cov of Works (Eden)
Cov of Grace (Gen 3:15 to the NC)

The New Covenant, as a term, is more to do with ordo historia than is to do with ordo salutis. The Cov of Grace reaches it's full maturity in NC, including; all it's members are elect because it is completely salvific i.e. the covenant is inviolable, therefore no covenant curse (cursed is he who hangs upon a tree Gal3:14). Would any other credo here agree? 

VanVos


----------



## Pilgrim

> Thanks, Chris, but I specifically want to understand Scott's interpretation of "cut off" and what that means for the convinced Baptist who has repented of known sin, asked for revelation of hidden sins, trusted by faith alone in Christ alone, and has bore the fruit of the Spirit until death.



I don't know if this is where Scott is coming from, but I've seen F.N. Lee compare those withholding baptism from infants to those who did not circumcise and were "cut off" but in the same work refer to "justified Baptists" in contrast to "heretical SDA", etc.


----------



## fredtgreco

Being a Confessional Presbyterian, I would state (along with the Confession) that the credobaptist is not cut off from God. The Confession is crystal clear on this:



> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.



One of the great problems of our day is the view that baptism brings the child of a professing believer into covenant with God. It does not. They have that right from birth.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Being a Confessional Presbyterian, I would state (along with the Confession) that the credobaptist is not cut off from God. The Confession is crystal clear on this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great problems of our day is the view that baptism brings the child of a professing believer into covenant with God. It does not. They have that right from birth.
Click to expand...


Mega - 's Pastor.

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

Totally out of context brother. Open up the doors and the torrential floodwaters are upon us with "anything goes." That section is not about whether Baptists are covenant breaker,s but whether _baptism saves_. 

You have to make a distinction between what is soteriological and what is covenantal they are not necessarily the same, though one framework sits in another. It seems that is being completely bypassed in this entire thread. I guess I should not assume people understand the differecne.

Would you say that the Israelite who neglected placing the sign of the covenant on thier children is cut off or not? How has this changed?
Where did God say it DID change? How does that affect the church?

(Please recall, I quoted the confession ont ihs pages ago with the same conclusion soteriologically, but not covenantally).

Fred, you will also have a hard time with Westminster's wiritngs proving that children who are not endowed with the covenant sign are in fact _covenantally_ united to Christ in the visible church and CoG without it. The Scots are quite interesting on that point. May I suggest a great book on that point - the Covenant of Life Opened by Rutherford. Yes, published by Puritan Puiblications! 


[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Pilgrim

From Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's _Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren_



> We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including justified Baptists; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins).


----------



## Puritanhead

I like this confession better:


> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 
> 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )
> 
> 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
> ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
> 
> 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> ( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )
> 
> 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )


 It's more in line with the apostolic teaching. :bigsmile:


----------



## Pilgrim

From the Westminster Directory For The Publick Worship of God:



> AND FIRST, OF BAPTISM.
> 
> BAPTISM, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.
> 
> Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed.
> 
> The child to be baptized after notice given to the minister the day before, is to be presented by the father, or (in case of his necessary absence) by some Christian friend in his place, professing his earnest desire that the child may be baptized.
> 
> Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing,
> "That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church,
> have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had."
> 
> In these or the like instructions, the minister is to use his own liberty and godly wisdom, as the ignorance or errors in the doctrine of baptism, and the edification of the people, shall require.
> 
> He is also to admonish all that are present,
> 
> "To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls."
> 
> He is to exhort the parent,
> 
> "To consider the great mercy of God to him and his child; to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, "and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God's wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent: requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty."
> 
> This being done, prayer is also to be joined with the word of institution, for sanctifying the water to this spiritual use; and the minister is to pray to this or the like effect:
> 
> "That the Lord, who hath not left us as strangers without the covenant of promise, but called us to the privileges of his ordinances, would graciously vouchsafe to sanctify and bless his own ordinance of baptism at this time: That he would join the inward baptism of his Spirit with the outward baptism of water; make this baptism to the infant a seal of adoption, remission of sin, regeneration, and eternal life, and all other promises of the covenant of grace: That the child may be planted into the likeness of the death and resurrection of Christ; and that, the body of sin being destroyed in him, he may serve God in newness of life all his days."
> 
> Then the minister is to demand the name of the child; which being told him, he is to say, (calling the child by his name,)
> 
> I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the child with water: which, for the manner of doing of it, is not only lawful but sufficient, and most expedient to be, by pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony.
> 
> This done, he is to give thanks and pray, to this or the like purpose:
> 
> "Acknowledging with all thankfulness, that the Lord is true and faithful in keeping covenant and mercy: That he is good and gracious, not only in that he numbereth us among his saints, but is pleased also to bestow upon our children this singular token and badge of his love in Christ: That, in his truth and special providence, he daily bringeth some into the bosom of his church, to be partakers of his inestimable benefits, purchased by the blood of his dear Son, for the continuance and increase of his church.
> 
> And praying, That the Lord would still continue, and daily confirm more and more this his unspeakable favour: That he would receive the infant now baptized, and solemnly entered into the household of faith, into his fatherly tuition and defence, and remember him with the favour that he sheweth to his people; that, if he shall be taken out of this life in his infancy, the Lord, who is rich in mercy, would be pleased to receive him up into glory; and if he live, and attain the years of discretion, that the Lord would so teach him by his word and Spirit, and make his baptism effectual to him, and so uphold him by his divine power and grace, that by faith he may prevail against the devil, the world, and the flesh, till in the end he obtain a full and final victory, and so be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, through Jesus Christ our Lord."


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Scott, what do you mean by "cut off"? What is the destiny of the one who remains Credo and yet bears the fruit of the Spirit?



Josh,
Here is one of my earlier posts:



> Matthew,
> The portion of the WCF that you provided was not meant to be practically applied to people whom were/are rebelliously rejecting Gods command to place the sign upon themselves or children. We all know that in the instances where an infant of a covenant family died upon birth, prior to baptism, that that would not effect his position in Christ, granted he was one of the elect; the same for an adult whom confessed Christ, yet did not make it to his baptism for whatever circumstances prior to his demise.
> 
> In regards to your post above. The question remains as to what exactly 'cut off' means; as well, the extent of 'reproach' spoken of in Joshua that was 'rolled away'?
> 
> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........
> 
> Judges shows that to be uncircumcised is unclean:
> 
> Judges 15:18 18 And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised?
> 
> Isaiah 52:1. Arise, arise, put on thy strength, O Sion, put on the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, the city of the Holy One: for henceforth the uncircumcised, and unclean shall no more pass through thee.
> 
> 28:10. Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.



I'll add: If I was Abraham and you were asking me this question, what would he have said in response? Think Jewish; go back in time for a moment........


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> From Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's _Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including justified Baptists; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins).
Click to expand...


Exactly. Justirfication is soteriological _and_ covenantal. Baptism signifies and exhibits soterialogical realities but is _covenantal_, not soteriological. In other words, we don't find baptism in the ordo salutis!

That doesn't mean, however, that those who reject the covenant sign on thier children are not breaking covenantal stipulations.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Fred,
> 
> Totally out of context brother. Open up the doors and the torrential floodwaters are upon us with "anything goes." That section is not about whether Baptists are covenant breaker,s but whether _baptism saves_.
> 
> You have to make a distinction between what is soteriological and what is covenantal they are not necessarily the same, though one framework sits in another. It seems that is being completely bypassed in this entire thread. I guess I should not assume people understand the differecne.
> 
> Would you say that the Israelite who neglected placing the sign of the covenant on thier children is cut off or not? How has this changed?
> Where did God say it DID change? How does that affect the church?
> 
> (Please recall, I quoted the confession ont ihs pages ago with the same conclusion soteriologically, but not covenantally).
> 
> Fred, you will also have a hard time with Westminster's wiritngs proving that children who are not endowed with the covenant sign are in fact _covenantally_ united to Christ in the visible church and CoG without it. The Scots are quite interesting on that point. May I suggest a great book on that point - the Covenant of Life Opened by Rutherford. Yes, published by Puritan Puiblications!
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]



Matt,

Are you suggesting that one can be justified and out of covenant with God?

When was Abraham justified? Before the sign or after it? 

When was Abraham in covenant with God? In Genesis 15 or only in Genesis 17?

I do not doubt that the Baptist is in error at this point, I do not even doubt that it is a serious error. I do not even doubt that there are covenantal consequences and chatisements that could come. But the point is that baptism (like circumcision before it) does not _create_ or _annul_ a covenant; it is a matter of recognize the reality of the covenant or not.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi,

The recording of baptism lecture is here.

rsc




> distinction between the external/visible covenant and its internal/invisible sense. Dr. Clark has some excellent treatment of that in his lecture, "Why Baptism, and What Does It Do?" as well as the expanded article in CPJ2. (The audio lecture was available on WSC's site, but I can't find a working link now. I can send you the file if you want.)


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I like this confession better:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 
> 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )
> 
> 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
> ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
> 
> 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> ( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )
> 
> 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )
> 
> 
> 
> It's more in line with the apostolic teaching. :bigsmile:
Click to expand...


And again I say


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Being a Confessional Presbyterian, I would state (along with the Confession) that the credobaptist is not cut off from God. The Confession is crystal clear on this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great problems of our day is the view that baptism brings the child of a professing believer into covenant with God. It does not. They have that right from birth.
Click to expand...


Fred,
You're kidding right? You're telling me that the Westminster divines were considering the credobaptist when they penned the entry you provide? No! They were not referring to rebelious individuals and covenant breakers. For what it's worth, the scriptures illuminate this doctrine easily. The passages that have been provided are without a doubt lucid. 

I previously posted:



> In regards to your post above. The question remains as to what exactly 'cut off' means; as well, the extent of 'reproach' spoken of in Joshua that was 'rolled away'?
> 
> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........
> 
> Judges shows that to be uncircumcised is unclean:
> 
> Judges 15:18 18 And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised?
> 
> Isaiah 52:1. Arise, arise, put on thy strength, O Sion, put on the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, the city of the Holy One: for henceforth the uncircumcised, and unclean shall no more pass through thee.
> 
> 28:10. Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.



and then there's Gen 17:

Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

Oh what was God thinking when Moses penned this? Unclean. Cut off. No passover. What was Westminster thinking?


[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> 
> Can an elect person be cut off? No; the elect will abide by Gods covenant. What about those in error? That person will be refined by Gods word and eventually come to the truth about God being a covenant keeping God and correct the error and place the sign upon their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Doesn't this seem to amount to practical fatalism? You seem to be saying that God will either not allow his elect to be in error about baptism or he will definitely recover them from their error before death. If this is the case, what makes baptism or failure to baptise different from all the other commands or sins in the bible? Will God definitely recover his people from every single one of their sins before they die?
Click to expand...


Scott,

I am sorry if I missed it, but I don't think my question above was answered. I am genuinely interested in your answer.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mark,
It has to begin with covenant; outside of the covenant equals a much larger issue than if I sin against you today as I am _in_ covenant w/ God; I am sure you would agree.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Scott, sincerely, please forgive my density. I'm just asking for a straightforward answer. Because I'm not _understanding_ the implications of what you're writing. According to my aforementioned qualities, what is the eternal destiny of the Credobaptist who never subscribes to paedobaptism?



Josh,
I will answer you again w/ scripture; my opinion amounts to nothing.



> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and *my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.* 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



Joshua,
I asked Randy a question earlier, which he evaded. I will ask you as well. Will God ever destroy the Earth with water again?

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ivan

Josh,

You aren't going to get a straightforward answer.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Josh,
> 
> You aren't going to get a straightforward answer.



Ivan,
So Gods word is not straightforward? Listen to what you are saying!


----------



## Ivan

Answer Josh's question.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Here's what I know: Gods elect will persevere; they will NOT perish. God knows whom are His, not I. God is a covenant keeping faithful God! He is a God of families and always has been. Covenant breakers are cut off from Gods people (as per God Himself).


[Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Answer Josh's question.



Why does Josh want my opinion? What does Gods word say?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Will God ever destroy the Earth with water again?


----------



## Ivan

No, I think it's pretty clear, Josh.

I'll have to consider if I want to hang around here. I've got a lot of the table and my time is valuable. I need to use it wisely.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, Scott. I'm genuinely sorry I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think it's pretty clear, Josh.
> 
> I'll have to consider if I want to hang around here. I've got a lot of the table and my time is valuable. I need to use it wisely.
Click to expand...


Whats clear Ivan? My position or opinion, or what Gods word says?


----------



## Kaalvenist

It's getting a little crazy in here. Anyone want to take a moment and just breathe, come back to it later, etc?


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> It's getting a little crazy in here. Anyone want to take a moment and just breathe, come back to it later, etc?



Much, much later....


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott, with all due respect you haven't established that Baptists are covenant breakers. The Bible itself says whoever believes (and is baptized; doesn't say when) will be saved; whoever does not believe will not be saved. This leads me to believe that the common factor in both is belief/absence of belief. Baptism is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; faith is what matters. Baptists get baptized in faith, when they are old enough to understand what is happening.

So I guess if one side is right and the other is wrong, I'd have to go with my side is right. I mean no disrespect by that, however, I don't appreciate being labelled a covenant breaker when such is not the case.

*before anyone accuses me of flying off the handle in response, that is not the case. I am writing this from a clear, calm mind. I just disagree. Present why I am wrong, if I am wrong*


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The portion of the WCF that you provided was not meant to be practically applied to people whom were/are rebelliously rejecting Gods command to place the sign upon themselves or children. We all know that in the instances where an infant of a covenant family died upon birth, prior to baptism, that that would not effect his position in Christ, granted he was one of the elect; the same for an adult whom confessed Christ, yet did not make it to his baptism for whatever circumstances prior to his demise.



Scott,

The word "rebelliously" is the key to this whole thread. You cannot prove an antipaedobaptist is "rebelliously" rejecting God's command.



> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........



How is this a big problem? I don't know of any conservative Presbyterian church which allows unbaptised people to partake of the Lord's supper.


----------



## bob

Josh wrote:

"Scott, sincerely, please forgive my density. I'm just asking for a straightforward answer. Because I'm not understanding the implications of what you're writing. According to my aforementioned qualities, what is the eternal destiny of the Credobaptist who never subscribes to paedobaptism? "

I don't presume to answer for Scott, but most commentators would comment that "to be cut off" (there are several sins that resulted in being cut off within the Mosaic law) was to be cut off from the fellowship, promises, privileges, and blessings of the covenant, both in this life and in the life to come.

There is some debate as to when, specifically, one is cut off. The Lord God came to kill Moses (some believe it to be his son) in Exodus 4 because his son was not circumcised. Zipporah takes a sharp stone and circumcises her son, throwing the foreskin at Moses' feet. God's anger is evidently abated.

I assume that if a presbyterian believes that credobaptists are cut off in the same sense that an Israelite was cut off for failure to circumcise, that he would believe that credobaptists are cut off from fellowship with the saints, the privileges, and blessings of the covenant, both in this life and in the life to come.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The portion of the WCF that you provided was not meant to be practically applied to people whom were/are rebelliously rejecting Gods command to place the sign upon themselves or children. We all know that in the instances where an infant of a covenant family died upon birth, prior to baptism, that that would not effect his position in Christ, granted he was one of the elect; the same for an adult whom confessed Christ, yet did not make it to his baptism for whatever circumstances prior to his demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The word "rebelliously" is the key to this whole thread. You cannot prove an antipaedobaptist is "rebelliously" rejecting God's command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this a big problem? I don't know of any conservative Presbyterian church which allows unbaptised people to partake of the Lord's supper.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
I was not referring specifically to the supper but all of the above; Being cut off/uncircumcision meant losing all of these benefits.

As far as the term rebellious goes, the passage in genesis is there for all to see. Sins of ignorance are not graded on a curve. 

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott, isn't the covenant we are under located throughout the New Testament? I like Genesis, it's pretty informative, but is that the covenant we are under?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Numbers 15:22-30 22 ' If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the LORD has spoken to Moses -- 23 'all that the LORD has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations -- 24 'then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering, as a sweet aroma to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering. 25 'So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their unintended sin. 26 'It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally. 27 ' And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 'So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 'You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them. 30 ' But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people.


----------



## Puritanhead

Scott, I believe in the continuity and unity of the Covenants too; but I think some Presbyterians _stretch it_ just a tad too much. 

Thank the Lord for the New Covenant of Grace!


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?

Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Scott, I believe in the continuity and unity of the Covenants too; but I think some Presbyterians _stretch it_ just a tad too much.
> 
> Thank the Lord for the New Covenant of Grace!



Take your pick: Owen, Calvin, Witsius.........


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?



Who was Abrahams _Priest_?

Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
Click to expand...

 Not unless infant baptism is considered a torrential flood.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless infant baptism is considered a torrential flood.
Click to expand...


The question was for Brian, but since you indulged me; why is that God will never destroy the world with water again, Ryan?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Fred, you will also have a hard time with Westminster's wiritngs proving that children who are not endowed with the covenant sign are in fact _covenantally_ united to Christ in the visible church and CoG without it. The Scots are quite interesting on that point. May I suggest a great book on that point - the Covenant of Life Opened by Rutherford. Yes, published by Puritan Puiblications!



Rutherford states explicitly (p. 72):



> Infants born of Covenanted Parents are in Covenant with God, because they are born of such Parents, as are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thy seed after thee.



Again, on p. 76:



> Infants in the former Covenant had right by birth to the means of salvation, to be taught and Catechised in the Law of the Lord, because born of Covenanting Parents within the Visible Church, and so had title to Covenant calling, and GODS Covenant choising.



They are baptised because they are in covenant. They are not in covenant because they are baptised. This excludes the idea that infants must be baptised before the children can be considered as being in covenant with God. Rutherford taught that baptism is the "seal" of infants being in covenant with God, and thereby they are brought into "communion" in the visible church.

I would suggest reading Rutherford's Peaceable and Temperate Plea for a proper understanding of Rutherford's ecclesiology. He held that the infants even of excommunicated persons are to be baptised (chapter 12), as did all the reformers of first and second reformations. Consider the following as a clear outline of Rutherford's thought:



> That our mind may be knowne in this, we propose these distinctions to the learned and godly Reader to be considered.
> 
> 1. There is an inherent holines, and there is a federall holines, whereby some are holy by covenant, that is, have right to the meanes of salvation, which right Turks and Pagans have not.
> 2. People or persons are two wayes within the covenant. 1. Truly, and by faith in Christ, and according to the election of grace. 2. In profession, because the word of the covenant is preached to them, as members of the visible Church.
> 3. There is a holines of the covenant, and a holines of covenanters, and there is a holines of the Nation, flocke and people, and a holines of the single person.
> 4. There is a holines of election in Gods mind, and a holines reall, and of the persons elected.
> 5. There is a federall or covenant-holines, de jure, by right, such as goeth before Baptisme in the Infants borne in the visible Church, and a holines de facto, a formall covenant-holines after they are baptized.
> Hence our first Conclusion, All the Infants borne within the visible Church, what ever be the wickednesse of their nearest Parents are to be received within the Church by Baptisme.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
Click to expand...


I'll have to look that up Scott. But the reason I asked was, you gave a passage from Numbers. I asked if that applied to us today, and to support my question, I asked the name of your priest. It mentions a priest who makes atonement right in the passage so if it applies to today, then priests should be making atonement. I understand if your priest wants to protect his privacy though, brother. :bigsmile:

I'd have to find out what the Noahic covenant is. No, God will never destroy the world with water again. But He will use fire and rocks of ice. But in all seriousnes, what does that question have to do with the issue? I'm a covenant breaker because God will not destroy the world with water again?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I was not referring specifically to the supper but all of the above; Being cut off/uncircumcision meant losing all of these benefits.



Scott,

I think you are obliged to be more clear in your speech. Please clarify, Cut off from what? Visible church privileges, or the benefits sealed in baptism?

Blessings!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by bob_
> I assume that if a presbyterian believes that credobaptists are cut off in the same sense that an Israelite was cut off for failure to circumcise, that he would believe that credobaptists are cut off from fellowship with the saints, the privileges, and blessings of the covenant, both in this life and in the life to come.



Your comments, Scott. Is this correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Fred, you will also have a hard time with Westminster's wiritngs proving that children who are not endowed with the covenant sign are in fact _covenantally_ united to Christ in the visible church and CoG without it. The Scots are quite interesting on that point. May I suggest a great book on that point - the Covenant of Life Opened by Rutherford. Yes, published by Puritan Puiblications!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rutherford states explicitly (p. 72):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants born of Covenanted Parents are in Covenant with God, because they are born of such Parents, as are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thy seed after thee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, on p. 76:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants in the former Covenant had right by birth to the means of salvation, to be taught and Catechised in the Law of the Lord, because born of Covenanting Parents within the Visible Church, and so had title to Covenant calling, and GODS Covenant choising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are baptised because they are in covenant. They are not in covenant because they are baptised. This excludes the idea that infants must be baptised before the children can be considered as being in covenant with God. Rutherford taught that baptism is the "seal" of infants being in covenant with God, and thereby they are brought into "communion" in the visible church.
> 
> I would suggest reading Rutherford's Peaceable and Temperate Plea for a proper understanding of Rutherford's ecclesiology. He held that the infants even of excommunicated persons are to be baptised (chapter 12), as did all the reformers of first and second reformations. Consider the following as a clear outline of Rutherford's thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That our mind may be knowne in this, we propose these distinctions to the learned and godly Reader to be considered.
> 
> 1. There is an inherent holines, and there is a federall holines, whereby some are holy by covenant, that is, have right to the meanes of salvation, which right Turks and Pagans have not.
> 2. People or persons are two wayes within the covenant. 1. Truly, and by faith in Christ, and according to the election of grace. 2. In profession, because the word of the covenant is preached to them, as members of the visible Church.
> 3. There is a holines of the covenant, and a holines of covenanters, and there is a holines of the Nation, flocke and people, and a holines of the single person.
> 4. There is a holines of election in Gods mind, and a holines reall, and of the persons elected.
> 5. There is a federall or covenant-holines, de jure, by right, such as goeth before Baptisme in the Infants borne in the visible Church, and a holines de facto, a formall covenant-holines after they are baptized.
> Hence our first Conclusion, All the Infants borne within the visible Church, what ever be the wickednesse of their nearest Parents are to be received within the Church by Baptisme.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Matthew,
We do not disagree with the above in the least; however, we are speaking of Christians whom do not baptise their children as the scriptures call them to. This is covenant breaking. Quoting you:



> They are baptised because they are in covenant.



If they are not baptised because of their parents insolence or fatigue, it shows that they are in reality covenant breakers.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Where does the New Testament command parents to baptize their infants though Scott? I want to follow Scripture's command to check and see whether these things are so.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have to look that up Scott. But the reason I asked was, you gave a passage from Numbers. I asked if that applied to us today, and to support my question, I asked the name of your priest. It mentions a priest who makes atonement right in the passage so if it applies to today, then priests should be making atonement. I understand if your priest wants to protect his privacy though, brother. :bigsmile:
> 
> I'd have to find out what the Noahic covenant is. No, God will never destroy the world with water again. But He will use fire and rocks of ice. But in all seriousnes, what does that question have to do with the issue? I'm a covenant breaker because God will not destroy the world with water again?
Click to expand...


Abrahams Priest is my Priest:



> Psalm 110:4 4 The LORD has sworn And will not relent, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."



research why God will never again destroy the earth again with water and there you will find your answer and the relevance.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If they are not baptised because of their parents insolence or fatigue, it shows that they are in reality covenant breakers.



Again, clarifications are needed; and failure to provide them is irresponsible. According to Rutherford's thought, which you agree with above, it is only the formal communion that the infant is received into by baptism. Conversely, it is only the formal communion that they are cut off from by not being baptised, i.e., visible church privileges. Yet I hear you implying that they are cut off from the actual benefits of the covenant, or invisible church privileges. So please clarify.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Scott,

You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:

*By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless infant baptism is considered a torrential flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was for Brian, but since you indulged me; why is that God will never destroy the world with water again, Ryan?
Click to expand...

 I was being tongue-in-cheek with the infant baptism pun.

"Thus I establish My covenant with you: 'Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.'" (Genesis 9:11) The reason for God´s resolve is rooted in the nature of man. No matter how many times the slate is wiped clean by calamity, the problem with man remains"”namely his sinful nature. "For the intent of man´s heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21). In God the fullness of His Succession of Divine Covenants, the way of Salvation planned from eterntity and was our blessed Messiah provided for in the New Covenant. After the Rainbow seal of the covenant was given, "...God said, "˜This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creation that is with you, for all successive generations;" ( Genesis 9:12). Thus, God promised never to subject the earth to torrential deluge again. This covenant proviso continues well up to the time the Lord returns to the earth to cleanse it by fire (II Peter 3:10).

If I left something out, then please enlighten me. I wasn't trying to write a treatise, just write succinctly.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Abraham's priest being your priest doesn't cut it though Scott. The passage talks about mortal man, sinful man in the role of "priest". So...who is fulfilling that role today? Is he in the yellow pages?

Scott said: "research why God will never again destroy the earth again with water and there you will find your answer and the relevance"

Scott, this doesn't cut it either. I asked you a question, I'd like you to answer it the best you can. People ask me questions on here all the time and I try to answer it instead of sending them on their way to research it for themselves. I'd rather you answer it, and then I can check Scripture to "see whether these things are so".


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*



That or they lost their salvation. <----heresy to all Reformers, including Scott I believe.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Here is a link on the Baptist side of the issue of baptism:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc29.html


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*



I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott said: "I never have said baptists are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed."

Then you are saying Baptists aren't saved Scott. You said that "God's people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting God's promise to them and their seed". Thus, if Baptists don't do that, then they aren't God's people.

I don't mean to be a jerk but where does the New Testament say what you said?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Scott, I am not arguing any of the Scripture you posted. The issue is, does it apply to us today? Or are we under a new covenant today?
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek brother, what is the name of your priest who makes atonement for those in your area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Abrahams _Priest_?
> 
> Is the Noahic covenant abrogated? Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless infant baptism is considered a torrential flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was for Brian, but since you indulged me; why is that God will never destroy the world with water again, Ryan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was being tongue-in-cheek with the infant baptism pun.
> 
> "Thus I establish My covenant with you: 'Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.'" (Genesis 9:11) The reason for God´s resolve is rooted in the nature of man. No matter how many times the slate is wiped clean by calamity, the problem with man remains"”namely his sinful nature. "For the intent of man´s heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21). In God the fullness of His Succession of Divine Covenants, the way of Salvation planned from eterntity and was our blessed Messiah provided for in the New Covenant. After the Rainbow seal of the covenant was given, "...God said, "˜This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creation that is with you, for all successive generations;" ( Genesis 9:12). Thus, God promised never to subject the earth to torrential deluge again. This covenant proviso continues well up to the time the Lord returns to the earth to cleanse it by fire (II Peter 3:10).
> 
> If I left something out, then please enlighten me. I wasn't trying to write a treatise, just write succinctly.
Click to expand...


Why is that God will never destroy the world w/ water again? Bear with me Ryan.......


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
Click to expand...

So then, to clarify, by "cut off" you mean that Baptists cannot be members of the visible church, but they can still be true believers, and members of the invisible church?


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
Click to expand...

 Yeah, he is only saying Presbyterians get all the cool prizes in Heaven, and us _covenant-breaking_ Baptists forfeit some. 

Seriously, you Baptists are begging this: watch out for straw man arguments. Tongue-in-cheek anecdotal quips are one thing, but this is disingenious line of rebuttal.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Well, I will try to stick to light-hearted tongue in cheek quips myself. I don't want this to get mean and personal. If it does, I will surf another thread. 

However, I will not let any man or his interpretations bind my conscience. This is the essence of Sola Scriptura as I was led to believe. Teachers are good, they are given by God, but ultimately the Holy Spirit will teach us what the truth is in His Word, and as of now I am certain that I believe the truth.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, to clarify, by "cut off" you mean that Baptists cannot be members of the visible church, but they can still be true believers, and members of the invisible church?
Click to expand...


Sean,


> _Christians_ *whom have children* and fail to follow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people.


----------



## Ivan

Enough!


----------



## BaptistCanuk

"Christians whom have children and fail to follow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people."

If I could only find this in the New Testament. I believe that was the case in Old Testament Israel but they weren't Christians. They were Jewish. We are under a new covenant, and there is no Jew or Gentile. Just Christian. Saved by faith, baptism (no matter when) notwithstanding.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Enough!



LOL not even close Ivan. 

I myself, have no interest in being mean or dividing over this issue. But I am having a little bit of fun and like so many say, iron sharpens iron. 

(ps. we need an "iron" emoticon)


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, to clarify, by "cut off" you mean that Baptists cannot be members of the visible church, but they can still be true believers, and members of the invisible church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> 
> 
> _Christians_ *whom have children* and fail to follow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Scott,

1. It should be "*who* have children," not "*whom* have children."

2. We know that Baptists do not place the sign upon their children, as per God's word. Therefore, we are talking about Baptists.

3. I am asking for clarification regarding *cut off from God's people.* Are you saying that Baptists should be excommunicated from the church, and that their "churches" are no churches at all, but that they may still be elect and regenerate? (Emphasis on the last clause; you still haven't answered it.)


----------



## Augusta

Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it. 

You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.

I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott. 

It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.

Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.



Scott,

Some forthrightness, please! What are they cut off from? Visible church privileges, or invisible church benefits?

If you are saying that the elect will certainly baptise their children, and that those who don't (presuming they are given the opportunity) are not elect -- then you are so far from Rutherford's thought that he probably would have devoted a whole 600 page treatise to answer you.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it.
> 
> You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.
> 
> I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott.
> 
> It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.
> 
> Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.



Good post.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it.
> 
> You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.
> 
> I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott.
> 
> It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.
> 
> Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.



So when did you develop the gift of being able to discern the thoughts and intents of the hearts of other men? You couldn't be more wrong. I am standing up for what I believe to be the truth. I am simply asking questions. It would be nice to receive an answer.

After all, when people try to trap me I do my best to avoid the trap, whilst answering the question. On every forum I visit, not just this one.

Now...when will some of (Augusta, Scott) deal with the hard sayings of Scripture? I've asked for one specific New Testament example to back up what is being propagated here, and I am still waiting for an answer. Here is a hard saying from Scripture: "All who call upon the Lord shall be saved". That includes "covenant breaking" Baptists and "pushy" Presbyterians, along with all those in between who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospel was meant to be so simple a child can understand it. What is that simplicity? We are saved by faith. I don't see children arguing about the things we are arguing about here. I am beginning to regret asking for simple Scripture to show me why I should believe as some here do.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Enough!


 Beating a dead horse threads like this one were sort of the thing I had in mind, when I offered this supplication this morning.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it.
> 
> You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.
> 
> I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott.
> 
> It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.
> 
> Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
Click to expand...


Not even close.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Scott,
> 
> You were a while ago asked a very simple question which you seem to be dodging. I will ask plainly:
> 
> *By your statements regarding covenant-breakers being "cut off," are you saying that Baptists are not saved?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, to clarify, by "cut off" you mean that Baptists cannot be members of the visible church, but they can still be true believers, and members of the invisible church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> 
> 
> _Christians_ *whom have children* and fail to follow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> 1. It should be "*who* have children," not "*whom* have children."
> 
> 2. We know that Baptists do not place the sign upon their children, as per God's word. Therefore, we are talking about Baptists.
> 
> 3. I am asking for clarification regarding *cut off from God's people.* Are you saying that Baptists should be excommunicated from the church, and that their "churches" are no churches at all, but that they may still be elect and regenerate? (Emphasis on the last clause; you still haven't answered it.)
Click to expand...


Anyone who goes by the name Christian, and has a child, should rightfully, as per Gods word, apply the covenant sign upon them; failure to do so will result in them being cut off from Gods people. I assume Moses meant the congregation, i.e excommunication. Obviously this means the loss of blessings associated with being in-covenant and attached to a congregation. Practically speaking, I am aware that the credo baptist churches do not hold to covenant theology per se, hence none of their members will be held accountable for this offense. This does not mean that God does not hold them responsible. I am not saying that Baptist churches are not churches. I am talking specifically about covenant faithfulness. The church issue is a whole different thing. There are many credo groups that do not hold to the three marks of a true church, i.e. calvary Chapels.

~Thanks for the English lesson


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I never have said _baptists_ are not saved. I have said over and over, Gods elect will not fall away; they will persevere. They will be glorified. Christians whom have children and fail to folllow Gods command to place the sign upon them are (as per Gods word) cut off form Gods people. Gods people will want to place the sign upon their child reflecting Gods promise to them and their seed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Some forthrightness, please! What are they cut off from? Visible church privileges, or invisible church benefits?
> 
> If you are saying that the elect will certainly baptise their children, and that those who don't (presuming they are given the opportunity) are not elect -- then you are so far from Rutherford's thought that he probably would have devoted a whole 600 page treatise to answer you.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
You write:


> Visible church privileges, or invisible church benefits?


I would say both. Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anyone who goes by the name Christian, and has a child, should rightfully, as per Gods word, apply the covenant sign upon them; failure to do so will result in them being cut off from Gods people. I assume Moses meant the congregation, i.e excommunication. Obviously this means the loss of blessings associated with being in-covenant and attached to a congregation. Practically speaking, I am aware that the credo baptist churches do not hold to covenant theology per se, hence none of their members will be held accountable for this offense. This does not mean that God does not hold them responsible. I am not saying that Baptist churches are not churches. I am talking specifically about covenant faithfulness. The church issue is a whole different thing. There are many credo groups that do not hold to the three marks of a true church, i.e. calvary Chapels.
> 
> ~Thanks for the English lesson


*BUT CAN THEY STILL BE SAVED?* If that is all you are saying, I have little to no problem with it. The problem is that people have been asking you if, by their refusing to believe in or practice paedobaptism, they prove themselves to be unregenerate. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that you have *still* not answered them.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it.
> 
> You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.
> 
> I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott.
> 
> It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.
> 
> Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.



Thank you Tracy. My head hurts, so I will call it a night.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anyone who goes by the name Christian, and has a child, should rightfully, as per Gods word, apply the covenant sign upon them; failure to do so will result in them being cut off from Gods people. I assume Moses meant the congregation, i.e excommunication. Obviously this means the loss of blessings associated with being in-covenant and attached to a congregation. Practically speaking, I am aware that the credo baptist churches do not hold to covenant theology per se, hence none of their members will be held accountable for this offense. This does not mean that God does not hold them responsible. I am not saying that Baptist churches are not churches. I am talking specifically about covenant faithfulness. The church issue is a whole different thing. There are many credo groups that do not hold to the three marks of a true church, i.e. calvary Chapels.
> 
> ~Thanks for the English lesson
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT CAN THEY STILL BE SAVED?* If that is all you are saying, I have little to no problem with it. The problem is that people have been asking you if, by their refusing to believe in or practice paedobaptism, they prove themselves to be unregenerate. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that you have *still* not answered them.
Click to expand...


They could still be saved. The negative response to Gods command is rebellious. We are talking about covenant, not just any ole sin. Sinning under the covenant is one thing, but by rejecting the command to place the sign as parents, one rejects the covenant; this is frightening! Does it prove reprobation; no. But it does reflect apostasy which could prove to be reprobation.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> You write:
> 
> 
> 
> Visible church privileges, or invisible church benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say both. Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election.
Click to expand...


I can see Rutherford dipping his pen in the inkpot now! Please go back and reread the section I posted from Rutherford's Peaceable and Temperate Plea. He states that infants have covenant right by being born of covenant parents, even where the parents have proven themselves covenant breakers. In historic reformed thought covenant breaking is a purely temporal concept, confined to "the outward administration of the covenant." One cannot break the everlasting covenant of grace.

To go back where I started, I can see now that you are in fact espousing a paedo version of Campbellism. It is not Presbyterian! I plead with you in brotherly concern that you reconsider your position. It was wise of the council of Jerusalem not to prescribe baptism in the place of circumcision as necessary for the Gentiles in order to be saved. The Westminster Confession followed suit. Any teaching to the contrary is unbiblical and unconfessional.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> You write:
> 
> 
> 
> Visible church privileges, or invisible church benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say both. Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see Rutherford dipping his pen in the inkpot now! Please go back and reread the section I posted from Rutherford's Peaceable and Temperate Plea. He states that infants have covenant right by being born of covenant parents, even where the parents have proven themselves covenant breakers. In historic reformed thought covenant breaking is a purely temporal concept, confined to "the outward administration of the covenant." One cannot break the everlasting covenant of grace.
> 
> To go back where I started, I can see now that you are in fact espousing a paedo version of Campbellism. It is not Presbyterian! I plead with you in brotherly concern that you reconsider your position. It was wise of the council of Jerusalem not to prescribe baptism in the place of circumcision as necessary for the Gentiles in order to be saved. The Westminster Confession followed suit. Any teaching to the contrary is unbiblical and unconfessional.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?

Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

You're telling me this and Gods word is crystal clear here.........

I will look at Rutherfords works on the matter. Campbellism is baptismal regeneration. For the record, I dont subscribe to BR.


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rutherford writes:


> Hence our first Conclusion, All the Infants borne within the visible Church, what ever be the wickednesse of their nearest Parents are to be received within the Church by Baptisme.



Matthew,
Does this not grind against Gen 17?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## satz

Scott,

Prehaps the problem is that not everyone is coming from the same understanding of the covenants as you are. You keep quoting from the covenants God made to Abraham and Moses, but not everyone understands how to apply that to christians today. Certainly the book of Hebrews says that a great change, comparable to a shaking of heaven and earth occured in the religion of God when Jesus Christ physically arrived on earth.

I mean no offense, but since you seem to be promoting a 'hard' teaching; that failure to baptise children is an apostasy that might give _evidence_ of possible reprobation, surely it is better to explain it in light of the new testament teaching as well.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by satz]


----------



## Augusta

Not in the least Josh!! You have been outstanding in this thread and it was clear to me that you were honestly wrestling with it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matthew,
I never said that baptism was needed to be 'saved'; I did say that by being faithful to Gods command is a reflection of one's place in the covenant; whether that be visible or invisible. You seem to be confusing salvation concepts with covenant concepts; Or possibly I am not being clear enough. Rutherford seems to be keeping them separate correctly. I am not Rutherford! 

What Rutherford is saying essentially is that the sacrament of baptism is _available_ to that child whle he is _in_ the church. I have no problem with that. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: suppose the family breaks covenant with the church, is excommunicated and moves to Idaho, and goes back to their pagan lifestyles with their children; are they covenant breakers or not? Or does Rutherfords quote still aplly to them?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Scott,
> 
> Prehaps the problem is that not everyone is coming from the same understanding of the covenants as you are. You keep quoting from the covenants God made to Abraham and Moses, but not everyone understands how to apply that to christians today. Certainly the book of Hebrews says that a great change, comparable to a shaking of heaven and earth occured in the religion of God when Jesus Christ physically arrived on earth.
> 
> I mean no offense, but since you seem to be promoting a 'hard' teaching; that failure to baptise children is an apostasy that might give _evidence_ of possible reprobation, surely it is better to explain it in light of the new testament teaching as well.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by satz]



Mark,
Please refer to McMahons earlier postings in this thread as he deals with a lot of the NT passages.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?
> 
> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



It requires that those who are not circumcised be cut off from the people of God as a visible church. Two points.

1. "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant." Calvin says this perpetuity is fulfilled in Christ. Hence there was something typical in this, which applied only to Abraham's physical children. Otherwise we are bound to circumcision and baptism cannot come in its place.

2. Insofar as baptism has come in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, it is to be given to those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and to their children. Those who neglect it are sinning greatly, and should be warned of the great danger of neglecting the ordinances of God, lest their hearts be hardened and they receive (that is, by profession) the grace of God in vain. The church may withhold the Lord's supper from such as a means of discipline; but it is not a pronouncement that they are excluded from the kingdom of God. The Corinthians who were punished with death for abusing the Lord's supper were said to have been judged that they should not be condemned with the world.

Calvin's comment on Gen. 17:14 provides prudent advice in this matter:



> "For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.



Campbellism is the exact opposite of what Calvin advises, teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Scott is giving all of the scripture necessary for you guys to get it. You just don't want to get it.
> 
> You want to try to make him make a statement so that you can try to put it all off onto him and take the focus off scripture and onto Scott.
> 
> I hope he doesn't let you do it. Hang in there Scott.
> 
> It is a very hard thing but I cannot at this point deny what the scriptures given are saying. I will be praying about this.
> 
> Quit trying to trap a brother in order to avoid dealing with a hard saying in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
Click to expand...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

From COLO:

Rutherford is helpful:


It is False that None are in the Covenant of the New Testament but Converts
Now if it be said it was indeed a singular privilege to the Jews, but what places of the New Testament make it a Cove-nant privilege to the Gentiles and their seed, if the Word of the Covenant preached to the aged under the New Testament, can the same ways, by accident, be preached and promises come to the ears of the unbaptised children, now growing to be capable of hearing the Gospel, Acts 2:39; 2 Timothy 3:15, as to pagans, and such as are no less strangers to the covenant, and void of all right by the covenant made with their parents, then Indians and their children who worship Satan? Paul not without com-mand preached the Word of the Covenant to the discerning Gentiles, Acts 13:47 from Isaiah 49:6, 9, 10, must not the fa-thers have command to speak the Gospel to their children? Or doth not the warrant that parents and pastors have to take within the covenant the fathers, warrant them to preach the same covenant to the children? Whereas, otherwise the apostles should have said, we have no warrant to offer the covenant to any or to preach Christ a given covenant to any: But, 1. To such as are come to age. 2. Such as are converts. 3. To such as can give signification by confession, that they are not only visible but also invisible and chosen confederates, and they should have said all children are now by Christ excluded as profane Gentiles and heathen from the Covenant of Grace, because there can be none (say Anabaptists) but real believers under the New Testament in covenant with God. 
Yea but the New Testament offers Christ a Covenant, in the preached promises, alike to fathers and sons, Matthew 4:16, the people (fathers and sons) that sat in darkness saw great light, etc; Matthew 19:43, Therefore I say unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And is it not a punishment to be de-prived of the Kingdom? If the Kingdom of God come where the Preached Covenant is, Matthew 3:2, 12:28, and the Bridegroom among them, and so cause of joy, Matthew 9:15, and the Golden Candlesticks be there and the Son of God walking in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks, Revelation 1:20, 2:1, sure this is much to children. If it be said, it is very nothing, for children understand nothing of this. What then is meant by the Proph-ecy of the coming of the Gentiles, Psalm 87:3-6, Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me; behold Phylistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia, that man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, this and that man was born in her. The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. And Christ Prophesying of the desolation extends the judgment of a despised Covenant to the children and the house, Matthew 23:37, 38; Luke 19:44, 22:24, how should there be under the New Testament Covenant wrath, for the fathers Covenant breaking derived to the children, if in their fathers the sucking children brake not the Covenant, then they have been in Cove-nant with their parents, especially since a Visible Covenanting, by borrowed allusions to altars, speaking the language of Ca-naan, offering incense, swearing by the Lord, is spoken of Egypt and of five, that is of many cities of Egypt, and of all the Gen-tiles Isaiah 19:18-21; Malachi 1:18, and Covenant blessing shall be derived from fathers to children. The Lord shall say, Isaiah 19:25, blessed by Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. It must be a narrow blessing of Covenanted Egypt, Assyria, Israel, if 1. it be a bless-ing of these come to age. 2. Professing the faith. 3. And bap-tized. How can the Lord say, blessed be Egypt, and though the whole seed be visibly in Covenant, old and young, yet it fol-loweth not that, therefore every promise that is absolute, that is, that of a new heart is made to all and everyone within the Visible Covenant: for it is promised, Deuteronomy 30:6, to the Jews, and was given to them and undeniably the visible body of the Jews and their seed were the chosen and externally Adopted and Covenanted people of God, Deuteronomy 29:10-13; Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 10:19, and the Lord calls them those whom he delivered out of Egypt, his people, Exodus 3:7, I have seen the affliction of my people, Ezekiel 37:12, O my people, I will open your graves, as many as Saul and David did feed, whether they have a new heart or not, the Lord calls them his people, 1 Samuel 9:16; 2 Samuel 7:8. See Psalm 50:7, Hear O my people, Psalm 81:13; Jeremiah 9:26, and so the Church of Corinth, 2 Corinthians 16, is called his people, and the Kingdoms of the world the Lord´s Kingdoms in Covenant, Revelation 11:15, and there were many of them uncircumcised in heart, Jeremiah 9:26; Isaiah 1:10; Amos 9:7, and with many of them, God was not well pleased, 1 Corinthians 10:5, and so it is most false that none are in Covenant under the New Testa-ment, but only Believers; For Judas, Demas, Simon Magus, and all the externally called (for they cannot be baptized but as in Covenant with God) Matthew 22:10, are by their profession in Covenant externally, as the Jew´s profession saith they accepted of, and consented unto the Covenant of Grace, For, 1 Corin-thians 10:7, Be not ye Idolaters, as some of them were, commit not fornication, tempt not Christ, murmur not, as some of them, 1 Corinthians 19:8, 9, these and the like say we are the same way in Covenant as they were and our Visible Church, now, and the Visible Church then are of the same constitution. 


Also here:

Of Federal Holiness
Question 5: What holiness is it that is called federal, or Covenant holiness which is in Infants?
Answer: It is not so much personal holiness (though it may so be called, because the person is a Church member, separated from the world to God) as holiness of the seed, Society, Family, or Nation, which is derived from father to son, as if the father be a free man of such a City, that privilege is so personal, as it is by the Law hereditary freedom derived from father to son, if the father have jus ad media salutis right to the means of salvation, so hath the son. Hence this was first domestic, God made the Covenant with Abraham and his family: I will be thy God, and the God of they seed, Genesis 17, it was extended to him, not as a father only, but as to the head of the family; the children of Servants born in Abraham's family were to be circumcised and to be instructed as having right to the means of Salvation. Genesis 17:12, He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your Generations (so it is Gen-eration-holiness) he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed. So God shows clearly that in Abraham he chose the Nation and the house, Genesis 18:19, I know Abraham, that he will command his chil-dren (that is too narrow a Church Visible) and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord. Afterward he chose the Nation to be a peculiar people holy to himself, Deuteronomy 7:6, 7 but not with another new distinct Cove-nant, but in the same Covenant. 8. But because the Lord loved you, and would keep the oath that he had sworn to your fathers, to wit, to Abraham, Deuteronomy 10:15, He chose their seed after them, even you, above all people, not above all houses. Amos 3:2, You only have I known of all the families of the earth. 


And here:

The Formal Ground of Right to Baptism, Scriptures Used by the Anabaptists
Question 6: What is the formal reason and ground that any hath right to Baptism?
Answer: If we speak of a passive right, if the Eunuch be-lieve, Acts 8, and if such have received the Spirit, Acts 10, they may receive baptism. The Eunuch moves not the Question whether Philip should sin in baptizing him or not. The Eunuch was troubled to make sure his own, not Philip´s conversion. They who bring that argument, Acts 8, and that, Mark 16, to prove that only such should be baptized, who believe actually and are come to age: they prove that the Church sinneth, if they baptize any, but such as are predestinated to life and really be-lieve. For the faith that Philip asked for, was real, with all the heart, not as the faith of Simon Magus: and the faith, mark 16:15, is real saving faith, that brings salvation; he that believes is saved. 
It cannot be visible faith only, for that is in Simon Magus, he doth visibly so believe and is baptized. Yet upon that faith he was not saved, being in the gall of bitterness. He that believes not, is damned. The meaning must be, he that believes not sav-ingly is damned: or then he that believes not visibly, as Magus, and Judas, is damned, but this is most false, for Peter believes not as Judas, and yet he is not damned: Or then the meaning must be, he that believeth both really, savingly, and also pro-fessedly and visibly, is saved. And that is true, but it concludes that none are to be baptized, but both real and visible believers. 
If it be true that none are to be baptized but Covenanted ones, as Acts 2:39. And if none be Covenanted ones under the New Testament, but real believers and such as are predesti-nated to life, as our Anabaptists teach from Romans 9, then must the Church without warrant of the Word baptize Magus, Demas, Judas. Then must also all Judea, all the Generations of vipers baptized have been both real and visible believers, for they were all baptized, Matthew 3:3-4; Mark 1:5; Luke 1:7, 21. Let Independents consider this, and what Dr. Fuilk, and Mr. Cartwright, Paraus, Calvin, Beza; and our Divines speak on these places against the auricular confession of all the huge multitude. 
It is a wonder that any man should dream that the Eunuch made a case of conscience, Acts 8, whether it was lawful to Philip to baptize, and not whether he himself did believe and could worthily receive the seal, Acts 8:36, here is water (saith he) what hinders me to be baptized? So none can warrantably baptize any but persons dying in faith, and its not certain these have the faith that is, Acts 8:37; Mark 16:16. But for the formal warrant of such as baptize: neither are the aged as the aged, nor Infants as Infants to be baptized; for so all the aged and all the Infants even of Pagans are to be baptized. Nor 2. Are all in Covenant, to be baptized: For such as are only really and invisi-bly in Covenant, and do make no profession of Christ at all, are not warrantably by the Church to be baptized. Only these whether old or young that are, tali modo visibili federati, such as professedly and visibly in covenant, and called, Acts 2:39, are warrantably baptized. Hence they must be so in Covenant, as they be called by the word of the Covenant, for they cannot be baptized against their will, Luke 7:29, 30. 


Quite good:

A Conditional Covenant is Still a Covenant, Though Not Fulfilled
8. It were nonsense to say to men under the externally pro-posed Covenant, repent, hear the gospel, use the means, receive the seals, and yet you have no right to hear, nor have we any warrant to baptize you, until ye believe; for there is no promise made to you, nor to your seed and children, until first you be-lieve. And it must say there was no threatening to Adam, Gene-sis 2:17, before he sinned, and no promise to Adam nor to any now, do this and live, until Adam first sinned, and first obeyed the Covenant; and so, if John Covenant to labor in Peter´s Vine-yard, and Peter promise to him four pence, so he work twelve hours otherwise he shall not pay him four pence, though John accept of the Covenant, and work but one hour, whereas his Covenant is to work for twelve hours, then no man can say to John (work, for there is a promise made of four pence to you) the other might deny; no such promise was made to me, except I work twelve hours. It were, sure, unfaithful dealing to John to say so. For the four pence ought not, by this Covenant, to be given to him, except he work twelve hours: but he cannot, with-out palpable falsehood, say, I have broken no Covenant, in not working twelve hours: For though I consented to the Covenant, and began to work an hour, yet the promise was not to me sim-ply, but to me as working twelve hours; but there is neither face nor faith in this Answer: for the fulfilling of the covenant is only to give four pence to John, if he work twelve hours; but the promise and Covenant was made to him, and he hath foully broken. Yea a conditional Covenant agreed unto and accepted, is a Covenant, if we shall (as in reason we ought) distinguish between a Covenant, in its essence and nature, and a Covenant broken or fulfilled, a Covenant or threatening, is a Covenant and threatening obliging Adam, if it shall be agreed unto, by silence, as Adam accepted the threatening, Genesis 2:17, by si-lence, and Professors within the visible Church, by their pro-fessing of the Doctrine of the Gospel or covenant of Grace, their receiving of the seals and professed hearing of the Word, are under the covenant of Grace, and engaged themselves to obey commands, promises, threatenings, and therefore promises are as properly made to them, Acts 2:39, as commands, and threat-enings, exhortations, invitations, and Gospel requests are made to them. But though the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise, and the things promised; the Covenant, and benefits Covenanted. The promise is to you, and so are the commands, and threatenings, whether ye believe or not, the command is to you, and lays an obligation on you, whether ye obey or obey not, and the threatenings are to you, whether ye transgress or transgress not. It is true, indeed, the promise, that is, the bless-ing promised, righteousness and eternal life is not given to you, until ye believe. Objection: Is not the promise made the same way to the aged as to the children, and the same thing required of both: the promise is to you and to your children. But the promise is made to the aged only, if they actually believe. Ergo, the promise is made to the children only, if they actually be-lieve, and so not to Infants. 

Here is a good section too:

If Infants are Outside the Cove-nant, What Blessings and 
Privileges They Lack
But it were an easier way to Anabaptists to say, infants un-der the New Testament are 1) externally in Covenant, whereas Parents believe, and members of the Church are followed with Covenant mercy, only because they understand not, and the administration is more spiritual under the New Testament, and faith more urged, God requires not the dipping of Infants in Rivers (a ceremony more onerous, more, truly, in women with child, virgins, diseased persons, in winter, in cold countries, against the word, the second Command, the third, the fourth, the sixth, the seventh, then that it needs to be refuted) it being only a ceremony which they may well want. But now Infants of believers are cast out, for no fault, of the Covenant of Grace. 
2) From Covenant mercy to the thousand Generations. Contrary to Genesis 17:17; Exodus 20:5. 
3) From Covenant prayers and Church prayers: Contrary to 1 Samuel 12; Psalm 28:9; Psalm 67:1, 2; Psalm 103: 4, 5. 
4) From the blessing of the Lord´s Covenant presence, who dwells in the Nation, in the Kingdom, Psalm 135:21; Psalm 132:13, 14; Revelation 11:15; Isaiah 19:25; Isaiah 1:1-3; 2 Corin-thians 6:16 I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and be their God, and they shall be my people. 18. And I will be a father to you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord God Almighty. Though this be spoken to, all the Covenanted people of God, yet are Infants cast out of the bosom of a Cove-nant Father and God? 5) Infants are debarred from Covenant calling and gathering in under the wings of Christ: Contrary to Matthew 28:19, 20; Matthew 23:37; Psalm 147:19, 20 and ex-cluded from God´s Covenant choice: Contrary to Deuteronomy 7:6-9, 13, 14; Deuteronomy 10:15 and left being heirs of wrath, a prey to Satan. 
6) They are Excommunicated from Covenant blessings earthly, and the Tabernacle protection promised in the Old and New Testament: Contrary to Deuteronomy 28:4; Leviticus 26:6-9; Psalm 37:18, 22, 25, 26; Psalm 92:10; Psalm 112:1-3; Ezekiel 34:24-26; Ezekiel 36:29, 35-37; Ezekiel 8:7, 8. And in the New Testament, Matthew 6:27, 28, 33; 1 Timothy 4:8; He-brews 13:5-6, which were nothing if our Heavenly Father pro-vide bread, protection, safety, dwelling in the land, and our houses, to the fathers, but the children had no charter but to beggary, to the sword, to be devoured by wild beasts and the diseases of Egypt: And the Infants have nothing from the Cove-nant but what Infants of Amaleck, and Babylon, 1 Samuel 15:1, 2; Psalm 137:5 and of Sodom have, Genesis 19. 
7) They are members of Satan, of the Kingdom of the Prince of darkness, not members of Christ´s Body, since there be but two Kings, two Gods, Satan, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephe-sians 2:1, 2; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 12:29, and Christ the King and Head of his body. And it is known that Infants within the Visible Church, suffer incursions of Devils, dreadful dis-eases, death; and being without the Covenant, as Pagans; these evils must either be acts of revenging justice, and preparatory to the judgment of eternal fire, or blessed in Christ: but if the former, they are damned, if the latter, what blessing is there without Christ?
8) Being without the Covenant. 1. Infants cannot be chosen and predestinated in Christ to salvation, as Ephesians 1:4; Ro-mans 9:11 nor given to Christ to be saved Covenant ways, as John 17:2; John 6:39 nor loved from eternity, nor in time, as Arminians teach, and so must be carried in Christ to Heaven or Hell, or rather to a mid place, without God or providence, or decrees, or foreknowledge, or counsel of God. 2. They being without the Gospel Covenant, cannot be redeemed by Jesus Christ his Blood, but some other way: Contrary to Acts 4:12. 3. If Infants be born without sin, as Anabaptists teach, they die, and go either to Heaven, and so Christ took not on him their nature, and is not their Savior: or they go to everlasting tor-ment, and yet never sinned, which is repugnant to Divine Jus-tice: Or to some third place of which the Scripture speaks not. And yet the word saith, Revelation 20:12, that the dead small and great shall stand before God, and shall be judged. And the Scripture saith Infants are capable of punishment, and of being cut off, and the parents punished in them, and they bear Cove-nant-wrath in their Parents: As is clear in the seed of Jeroboam, of Achab, of others, Exodus 20:5; Genesis 17:14. 4. Neither re-mission of sins, Justification, nor life eternal, nor Sonship, nor Adoption in Christ´s suffering death, and in the Blood of the everlasting Covenant, can belong to Infants if they be without the Covenant. 
9) Nor can children be capable of being blessed of Christ, or of his laying on of hands. As Mark 10, if they be not under the New Testament capable of Covenant grace: And it is to be minded, that Covenanting parents, Luke 18. 

And this applies to this whole conversation:

Differences Between External and Internal Covenanting
External Covenanting goes before internal Covenanting, as the means before the end, and the cause before the effect: for faith comes by hearing of a sent Preacher, Romans 10:14, and the Preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and a new spirit: Hence, 1. all must be first externally in Covenant, before they can be internally and really in cove-nant. 2. God is a God simply to some, and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church privileges, as the Word, Seals, Protection, Peace, Hedge of Discipline, his planting and watering by a Ministry. But he is, to speak so, more then a God to others, Hosea 2:19. I will betroth thee unto me forever, yea I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercy. Now the Lord is joined to back-sliding Israel, in an external marriage Covenant: But Jeremiah 3:14 not in righteousness, in loving kindness and mercy, in ref-erence to the rotten party. In regard of which he saith, Hosea 2:2, Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, nei-ther am I her husband. Zechariah 8:7-8, Thus saith the Lord, I will save my people from the East Country, and from the West Country. And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness. Then he is not to all a God in truth and righteousness, fulfilling the first and substan-tial promise of engraving the Law in the heart, not that he keeps not Covenant even to external confederates, to wit, the condi-tional Covenant, for if they should believe they should be saved; but he promised not a new heart, and saith to them. 3. Because he is a God external to the Elect, and that of free Grace, there-fore he is a God in truth and righteousness, to engrave his Law in their heart. But external confederation is not the adequate cause, for then he should hive a new heart to all, with whom he externally Covenants, but the adequate cause is confederation external tali modo, is the cause, and the engraving of a new heart is the effect. Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 32:38-39 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God, That is the cause. I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever; for the good of them and of their children af-ter them. See the same order, Ezekiel 11:19-20, though the words lie not in that order there and here, And Hebrews 8:10. 5. God is not then a God to any, because they have a clean heart, and the Law engraved therein, for then they should be in Covenant, before they be in Covenant; And so this is true (be-cause he is our God in truth and righteousness, therefore we believe) but this is not true (because we believe, therefore he is our God) except we argue from the effect to the cause. 
But to return: Calvin on Matthew 19:14, "œWe hence gather that the grace of Christ is extended to Infant age, for whole mankind had perished." Beza, "œInfants are also comprehended in the free Covenant." Pareus, "œIts unlawful to debar these from baptism and the Church, whom Christ bids come to him, " etc., Objection: But Christ commands not they be baptized. Answer: 1. Nor doth Christ in this place command the Parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: Nor speak the Evangelists of any parental duty; shall we from that con-clude, it was not Christ´s mind that the Parents take care of the fourth and fifth Command? Pareus saith, "œIt was neither time nor place. Matthew 28:19, he bids baptize all. " 3. He who prayed for the, blessed them, laid his hands upon them, invited them to bring Infants to him (of all which Infants were as inca-pable, as of the use and ends of Baptism and of actual confes-sion of sin and of believing) judged they ought be Baptized. 4. Its never to be found where any are Baptized, but the Head of the Family is Baptized: And when we read that houses were Baptized, 1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 16:33 There is no more ground to say Infants are not Baptized, then to say when the Lord saith to Abraham, Genesis 12:2, I will bless thee, and make thy name great. And Genesis 22:17, in blessing I will bless thee. And when the Lord saith, Isaiah 19:25, blessed be Egypt my people; he should mean, he would bless Abraham, not his seed, and that he minds to bless the aged of Egypt, and of Assyria, but not their seed and infants, because they under-stand not what a blessing of God means; and yet the fruit of the womb and the seed are said to be blessed, Psalm 37:26; Deu-teronomy 7:13, and God so entreated to bless Israel, and to bless David´s house, Psalm 28:9; Psalm 67:1; Deuteronomy 26:16; 2 Samuel 7:29, the meaning should not be that God would bless the young Infants and Children in Israel and in David´s house: and when Jacob is said to provide for his own house, Genesis 30:30, And the believer to provide for his Fam-ily, 1 Timothy 5:8, the meaning should be that they should pro-vide for the aged of the house, who understood what provision is, but should not provide for the young ones, who can not know what it is to be hungry tomorrow. To say young ones are not capable of Baptism, it to beg the Question. For 1. All Israel were Baptized in the Sea and in the Cloud, old and young, 1 Co-rinthians 10:1-2. 2. All Israel old and young are capable of the blessing Covenanted, Psalm 28:9; Psalm 67:1-2 and so of the seal: Anabaptists grant (as they must) if Infants be in Covenant, they ought to receive the Seal of the Covenant. Lastly, how is it that by baptized houses, must be meant only these come to age who can actually believe?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> What Rutherford is saying essentially is that the sacrament of baptism is _available_ to that child whle he is _in_ the church. I have no problem with that. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: suppose the family breaks covenant with the church, is excommunicated and moves to Idaho, and goes back to their pagan lifestyles with their children; are they covenant breakers or not? Or does Rutherfords quote still aplly to them?



Rutherford states hearing the Word is a form of communion in the visible church. Those who ahve been baptised, but who have never professed faith for themselves, or might have professed faith but fallen under discipline, and yet still continue to hear the Word, are still in covenant, and their infants are to be baptised. In the case of the Idaho people, if they are willing to bring their children to church to hear the Word, then their children have a right to baptism. Although Rutherford's theology often presupposes an establishment situation, where paganism is outlawed. Blessings!


----------



## Augusta

This thread reminds me of a certain dialogue. 

Did you order the code red???

You want answers?

I think I´m entitled.

I want the truth!

YOU CAN´T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!


So it is according to the confession a "great sin" not give the sign. This seems to fall short of what is demonstrated in the OT passages given about being cut off. 

If it is equivilent to excommunication then wasn't that so that they could realize their danger and repent? And if they didn't repent? Then back to the issue of a covenant head being responsible for his children?

Rev. Winzer can you expand on this some more for those of us who are not theologians like you guys and Rutherford?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> If it is equivilent to excommunication then wasn't that so that they could realize their danger and repent? And if they didn't repent? Then back to the issue of a covenant head being responsible for his children?



I wonder to what degree the OT is being understood in a Christian as distinct from a Judaistic manner? In volume 2 of Manton's Works there is an excellent sermon on morals before rituals. Should we, in being zealous to enforce positive laws, neglect to do our duty as prescribed by the moral law? If a "brother" has genuine scruples over infant baptism, ought we not to patiently help him to a better understanding rather than pronounce him anathema and under the curses of the covenant?

Perhaps the issue is better discussed under the rubric of church censures as taught by the Confession. The beauty of Presbyterianism, at least in the eyes of this beholder, has been its consideration of ordinances as means of grace, not badges of superiority, and thereby to extend these to as many as is morally possible.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

First off, can the board stop going down when I post? Second, I'm still waiting for someone to address my points/answer my questions.


----------



## Augusta

I honestly don't think anyone here is trying to be superior. 

I go round and round with myself with the question that maybe I shouldn't even be asking. You can tell me if it is a bad question. 

Does God leave his people ignorant of essential doctrines? Does he not provide the knowledge? And if it is ignored? 

2 Peter 1
Greeting the Faithful
1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 

*2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,* 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Fruitful Growth in the Faith

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 
*10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.*

Shouldn't we when convinced by scripture of a thing contend with all our might to propagate it's truth? Isn't is safer for all concerned not to minimize something that may be very serious? I think that is what is going on here. Not superiority but warning with a deep concern. 

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Augusta]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> This thread reminds me of a certain dialogue.
> 
> Did you order the code red???
> 
> You want answers?
> 
> I think I´m entitled.
> 
> I want the truth!
> 
> YOU CAN´T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
> 
> 
> *So it is according to the confession a "great sin" not give the sign.* This seems to fall short of what is demonstrated in the OT passages given about being cut off.
> 
> If it is equivilent to excommunication then wasn't that so that they could realize their danger and repent? And if they didn't repent? Then back to the issue of a covenant head being responsible for his children?
> 
> Rev. Winzer can you expand on this some more for those of us who are not theologians like you guys and Rutherford?



Not according to this confession:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc29.html


----------



## BaptistCanuk

I don't believe anybody is trying to be superior either. I think both sides are passionate about what they believe. We don't have to let this divide us though, as our unity is in Christ. Not timing and mode of baptism.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> I never said that baptism was needed to be 'saved'; I did say that by being faithful to Gods command is a reflection of *one's place in the covenant; whether that be visible or invisible. You seem to be confusing salvation concepts with covenant concepts*; Or possibly I am not being clear enough.



Scott, at least as I think most of us understand the term, membership in the _invisible_ covenant IS salvation. It is possible to confuse salvation with _visible_ covenant concepts (i.e. confusing the invisible and visible covenant) - but not with invisible; for salvation is precisely that to which membership in the invisible covenant refers.

Do you agree that what the "invisible covenant" refers to is those who are saved? That is certainly the historic Reformed concept of what the invisible covenant is (as opposed to the visible), and I would be willing to bet that is how most people here are using it as well. At any rate, I trust that is at least _not_ how you were using the term when you answered Matthew's question by saying, "Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election." If the invisible covenant membership is understood to mean the collection of those people who are justified and saved, that statement would in fact be saying that Reformed Baptists who fail to baptize their children are all in fact unregenerate and unjustified until and unless they change their practice.


----------



## MW

Brian and Traci,

The statement about badges of supriority was not meant to imply that some people think themselves superior to others, but that the means of grace is looked upon as grace itself, and therefore something which distinguishes one one from another. Whereas in Presbyterian polity they are means of grace, the receiving of which is a great privilege, but they remain means nonetheless, and it is grace which we are to magnify.

Brian, you have been fighting another battle, which I don't think is really relevant to this thread; there is nothing in my statements which addresses the question of time or mode. The thread is solely concerned with how paedobaptists should view the children of non-paedobaptists.

Traci, God does not leave His people ignorant of *essential* doctrines, if by that is meant, essential to salvation. Yes, we should fight for every inch of that testimony which Christ was pleased to seal with His own blood. But we should fight as Christ and the apostles would fight, and show meekness, gentleness, and patience. Paul opposed Peter for dissimulation when Peter withdrew from (Gentile) brethren in the belief that he possessed superior privileges to them.

Blessings!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Being a Confessional Presbyterian, I would state (along with the Confession) that the credobaptist is not cut off from God. The Confession is crystal clear on this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great problems of our day is the view that baptism brings the child of a professing believer into covenant with God. It does not. They have that right from birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You're kidding right? You're telling me that the Westminster divines were considering the credobaptist when they penned the entry you provide? No! They were not referring to rebelious individuals and covenant breakers. For what it's worth, the scriptures illuminate this doctrine easily. The passages that have been provided are without a doubt lucid.
> 
> I previously posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to your post above. The question remains as to what exactly 'cut off' means; as well, the extent of 'reproach' spoken of in Joshua that was 'rolled away'?
> 
> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........
> 
> Judges shows that to be uncircumcised is unclean:
> 
> Judges 15:18 18 And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised?
> 
> Isaiah 52:1. Arise, arise, put on thy strength, O Sion, put on the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, the city of the Holy One: for henceforth the uncircumcised, and unclean shall no more pass through thee.
> 
> 28:10. Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then there's Gen 17:
> 
> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Oh what was God thinking when Moses penned this? Unclean. Cut off. No passover. What was Westminster thinking?
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Scott,

I'm not kidding. I wonder where in the world you are getting what you are saying. The divines were EXACTLY talking about credobaptists when they penned 28.5. I don't think ANY respectable scholar of the Confession things otherwise.

Does Genesis 15 come before 17 in your Bible?

You have said that those who refuse to place the sign upon their children are cut off from both the visible and *invisible *covenant. This is absolutely false, is directly contradicted by WCF 28.5, and frankly, is heresy. Rev. Winzer is correct - it is a form of Campbellism. It makes the sign the thing signified. You can't mean that.

I trust that you are confused. I left to attend a church function, and by the time I get back dozens of posts are in. And Rev. Winzer is saying EXACTLY what I would have said. The sign of the covenant was NEVER (not in any administration) equivalent to the thing signified. You are equating the two, which quite frankly, is a FV error.


----------



## Puritanhead

> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.


 This WCF statement is commensurate with Calvin in the _Institutes_, specifically Book IV, Chapter 15, in which he refutes the notion that baptismal regeneration is requisite for salvation:


> "But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means. Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us."


 I recollect studying this issue, and remember the reference, because Dave Hunt libeled John Calvin in the _Debating Calvinism_ book, erroneously stating Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration or Campbellism.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Brian and Traci,
> 
> The statement about badges of supriority was not meant to imply that some people think themselves superior to others, but that the means of grace is looked upon as grace itself, and therefore something which distinguishes one one from another. Whereas in Presbyterian polity they are means of grace, the receiving of which is a great privilege, but they remain means nonetheless, and it is grace which we are to magnify.
> 
> *Brian, you have been fighting another battle, which I don't think is really relevant to this thread; there is nothing in my statements which addresses the question of time or mode. The thread is solely concerned with how paedobaptists should view the children of non-paedobaptists.*
> 
> Traci, God does not leave His people ignorant of *essential* doctrines, if by that is meant, essential to salvation. Yes, we should fight for every inch of that testimony which Christ was pleased to seal with His own blood. But we should fight as Christ and the apostles would fight, and show meekness, gentleness, and patience. Paul opposed Peter for dissimulation when Peter withdrew from (Gentile) brethren in the belief that he possessed superior privileges to them.
> 
> Blessings!



I don't believe I'm "fighting another battle". And my posts are as relevant as yours are. "Timing" and "mode" were terms I added to 'exaggerate". I didn't know I was only addressing your statements. But if I'm wasting yours and everyone else's time I shall cease trying to contribute. Blessings to you too.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Oops, I couldn't stop just yet. I have always wondered why people refer to historical people as "divines". Nobody is divine but the Lord Himself. I will refer to them as fallible humans, like the rest of us. 

You may continue the "relevant" posts as I think I have said all I want to say.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> I don't believe I'm "fighting another battle". And my posts are as relevant as yours are. "Timing" and "mode" were terms I added to 'exaggerate". I didn't know I was only addressing your statements. But if I'm wasting yours and everyone else's time I shall cease trying to contribute. Blessings to you too.



Brian,

Where is this coming from? Obviously I have offended. I apologise, but I was not being offensive; just clarifying what it was my remarks were directed towards, i.e., not that other battle of timing and mode. Comments relative to that issue are worth the time. Blessings!


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Matthew, I'm not angry at you. I was a little shocked, as I thought I was doing just fine in this discussion.

I understand what points you were making on here. I thought you were saying my posts as a whole were irrelevant. I just misunderstood what you were saying so there's no need to apologize. Peace, friend.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by satz_
> Scott,
> 
> Prehaps the problem is that not everyone is coming from the same understanding of the covenants as you are. You keep quoting from the covenants God made to Abraham and Moses, but not everyone understands how to apply that to christians today. Certainly the book of Hebrews says that a great change, comparable to a shaking of heaven and earth occured in the religion of God when Jesus Christ physically arrived on earth.
> 
> I mean no offense, but since you seem to be promoting a 'hard' teaching; that failure to baptise children is an apostasy that might give _evidence_ of possible reprobation, surely it is better to explain it in light of the new testament teaching as well.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by satz]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> Please refer to McMahons earlier postings in this thread as he deals with a lot of the NT passages.
Click to expand...


Will do, Scott.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Being a Confessional Presbyterian, I would state (along with the Confession) that the credobaptist is not cut off from God. The Confession is crystal clear on this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great problems of our day is the view that baptism brings the child of a professing believer into covenant with God. It does not. They have that right from birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You're kidding right? You're telling me that the Westminster divines were considering the credobaptist when they penned the entry you provide? No! They were not referring to rebelious individuals and covenant breakers. For what it's worth, the scriptures illuminate this doctrine easily. The passages that have been provided are without a doubt lucid.
> 
> I previously posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to your post above. The question remains as to what exactly 'cut off' means; as well, the extent of 'reproach' spoken of in Joshua that was 'rolled away'?
> 
> One was not to eat the passover if this command was broken:
> 
> Exodus 12:48 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
> 
> Thats a big problem.........
> 
> Judges shows that to be uncircumcised is unclean:
> 
> Judges 15:18 18 And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised?
> 
> Isaiah 52:1. Arise, arise, put on thy strength, O Sion, put on the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, the city of the Holy One: for henceforth the uncircumcised, and unclean shall no more pass through thee.
> 
> 28:10. Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then there's Gen 17:
> 
> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Oh what was God thinking when Moses penned this? Unclean. Cut off. No passover. What was Westminster thinking?
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> I'm not kidding. I wonder where in the world you are getting what you are saying. The divines were EXACTLY talking about credobaptists when they penned 28.5. I don't think ANY respectable scholar of the Confession things otherwise.
> 
> Does Genesis 15 come before 17 in your Bible?
> 
> You have said that those who refuse to place the sign upon their children are cut off from both the visible and *invisible *covenant. This is absolutely false, is directly contradicted by WCF 28.5, and frankly, is heresy. Rev. Winzer is correct - it is a form of Campbellism. It makes the sign the thing signified. You can't mean that.
> 
> I trust that you are confused. I left to attend a church function, and by the time I get back dozens of posts are in. And Rev. Winzer is saying EXACTLY what I would have said. The sign of the covenant was NEVER (not in any administration) equivalent to the thing signified. You are equating the two, which quite frankly, is a FV error.
Click to expand...


Fred,
I am not confused and am not 'equating ' the two. I never said that the sign is 'equivalent to the thing signified. I do not believe the sign regenerates. I do not believe one needs to have the sign to be saved.

Calvin writes:


> A child should be presented to God, to receive Baptism purely, according to the institution [of the Holy Bible]. He is instead defiled [by magical sacramentalism] with many perverse and profane ceremonies. It is quite true that Baptism does not on that account fail to have its virtue as far as the child is concerned. Because God´s ordinances [such as Paedobaptism] are not abolished by the foolish inventions of men" such as Romish and Eastern-"˜Orthodox´ baptismal regenerationism.




However, talking of the parents, again I say, it does reflect one's heart, one's place in the covenant in respect to being obedient to Gods command in placing the sign upon one's child. I am saying that if the covenant parent refuses to place the sign, scripture shows that God will excommunicate that person and the person who does not get the sign placed upon them. Isn;t that what scripture says? As far as being 'cut off', again, it would mean excommunication from the visible and ultimately from the invisible if the person never repented of the sin. Why would a true covenanter not repent of a 'great sin' as this?


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

From Rutherfords works:



> 8) Being without the Covenant. 1. Infants cannot be chosen and predestinated in Christ to salvation, as Ephesians 1:4; Ro-mans 9:11 nor given to Christ to be saved Covenant ways, as John 17:2; John 6:39 nor loved from eternity, nor in time, as Arminians teach, and so must be carried in Christ to Heaven or Hell, or rather to a mid place, without God or providence, or decrees, or foreknowledge, or counsel of God. 2. They being without the Gospel Covenant, cannot be redeemed by Jesus Christ his Blood, but some other way: Contrary to Acts 4:12. 3. If Infants be born without sin, as Anabaptists teach, they die, and go either to Heaven, and so Christ took not on him their nature, and is not their Savior: or they go to everlasting tor-ment, and yet never sinned, which is repugnant to Divine Jus-tice: Or to some third place of which the Scripture speaks not. And yet the word saith, Revelation 20:12, that the dead small and great shall stand before God, and shall be judged. *And the Scripture saith Infants are capable of punishment, and of being cut off, and the parents punished in them, and they bear Cove-nant-wrath in their Parents: As is clear in the seed of Jeroboam, of Achab, of others, Exodus 20:5; Genesis 17:14. 4. Neither re-mission of sins, Justification, nor life eternal, nor Sonship, nor Adoption in Christ´s suffering death, and in the Blood of the everlasting Covenant, can belong to Infants if they be without the Covenant.*
> 9) Nor can children be capable of being blessed of Christ, or of his laying on of hands. As Mark 10, if they be not under the New Testament capable of Covenant grace: And it is to be minded, that Covenanting parents, Luke 18.



What exactly is Rutheford saying here? He uses the term -cut off- and 'if they be without the covenant'? If children birthed to covenant families, families whom are unfaithful to the covenant, are by default considered covenant children ( as earlier alluded to), why is Rutheford using this language. He clearly says:



> And the Scripture saith Infants are capable of punishment, and of being cut off



First off, one cannot be cut off from something one was not attached to initially (clarifying that the thing is not equivalent to the thing signified). If an infant _can_ be -cut off-, please tell me what they could be cut off from and what would be the reasons for being -cut off-?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> I never said that baptism was needed to be 'saved'; I did say that by being faithful to Gods command is a reflection of *one's place in the covenant; whether that be visible or invisible. You seem to be confusing salvation concepts with covenant concepts*; Or possibly I am not being clear enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, at least as I think most of us understand the term, membership in the _invisible_ covenant IS salvation. It is possible to confuse salvation with _visible_ covenant concepts (i.e. confusing the invisible and visible covenant) - but not with invisible; for salvation is precisely that to which membership in the invisible covenant refers.
> 
> Do you agree that what the "invisible covenant" refers to is those who are saved? That is certainly the historic Reformed concept of what the invisible covenant is (as opposed to the visible), and I would be willing to bet that is how most people here are using it as well. At any rate, I trust that is at least _not_ how you were using the term when you answered Matthew's question by saying, "Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election." If the invisible covenant membership is understood to mean the collection of those people who are justified and saved, that statement would in fact be saying that Reformed Baptists who fail to baptize their children are all in fact unregenerate and unjustified until and unless they change their practice.
Click to expand...


Chris,
I guess I am saying that about the parents who are unfaithful to Gods command; can it be both ways? This is not to say that ALL credo's would fall into this category.

Nigel lee writes:



> When a Christian parent neglects to have his infant baptized, serious consequences ensue! Indeed, it is clear that every male baby of believing parents needed to be circumcised even when only "eight days old."30 For the Lord Himself declared that "any un-circumcised male (or male child ) who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."31 Note how the believing parent s neglect to have the sign of God s covenant applied to own infant, was seriously detrimental to the child himself. For by that parent s neglect, the baby himself was "cut off from his people"31 cut off by his own parent s neglect, and even cut off from his own circumcised father as one of the Lord s people. Hence, God decreed that the covenantal infant "must be circumcised."31 Because baptism now replaces circumcision,19 it follows that every Christian who neglects to have his own children baptized in infancy, cuts them off from himself and from the people of God.32 What an awesome sin of omission, then, is committed by some of our dear Christian brethren who refuse baptism to their own little infants and thus despise the sacrament of the saving grace of God! Of course, this does not mean that the baptism of an infant in any way saves the baby. For, as Calvin remarked, "since God threatens punishment only to despisers (of infant baptism, and formerly of infant circumcision), we infer that the circumcision of children would do them no harm, if they died before the eighth day. To consign to destruction those infants whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in [Romanistic] superstition.... [But] whoever neglects baptism [for his own babies], suggesting that the parent is content with the bare promise [of salvation for his children], for his part tramples upon the blood of Christ or at least does not believe that it flows for the washing of his own children.... Such contempt shall not pass unpunished.... As God adopts the infant son in the person of his father so, when the father repudiates such benefit, the infant is said to be cut off from the church."33 However, not only is it seriously detrimental to the baby for him or her to be left unbaptized. It is also seriously detrimental even to the baby s parents. For, as Calvin pointed out: "God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child (Genesis 17:14) such contempt being a rejection... of the offered grace."34 No one, no matter how godly in other respects, is excepted from this vengeance. For even the great Moses himself had to learn this the hard way.



Additionally:



> As Calvin commented, Moses "was terrified by the approach of certain destruction. At the same time, the cause of his affliction was shown him, so that he hastened to seek for a remedy. For...it would never otherwise have occurred to himself and his wife to circumcise the child to appease God s wrath; and it will appear a little further on, that God was, as it were, propitiated by this offering --- since He withdrew His hand, and took away the tokens of His wrath. "I therefore unhesitatingly conclude, that vengeance was declared against Moses for his negligence, which was connected with still heavier sins; for he had not omitted his son s circumcision from forgetfulness or ignorance, or carelessness only, but because he was aware that it was disagreeable either to his wife or to his father-in-law [Jethro the godly but Non-Israelitic religious leader and priest of Midian]. Therefore, lest his wife should quarrel with him, or his father-in-law trouble him, he preferred to gratify them, [rather] than to give occasion for divisions, or enmity, or disturbance. "In the meantime, how-ever, for the sake of the favour of men, he neglected to obey God.... Let us learn from hence to use reverently the sacraments, which are the seals of God s grace, lest He should severely avenge our despisal of them; and at the same time, we should remember that the external profession of piety and the worship of God is a sacrifice so pleasant to God that He will not allow us to omit the care of diligently testifying (about) it, as if it were a matter of small importance."42



and finally Lee writes:



> Dear Christian parent! Have you been neglecting to have your baby baptized? It is indeed "a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance!"66 Oh, do not jeopardize your child s welfare or your own physical or spiritual life or health any longer! Present your child to the Lord in holy baptism as soon as possible!67 Make peace with God, and do not further invite His reproach68 or perhaps even His sore displeasure or anger!69 Be reconciled to God; "kiss the Son lest He be angry, and you be destroyed in your way, for His wrath can flare up in a moment!"70



[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Dave L

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> I am not confused and am not 'equating ' the two. I never said that the sign is 'equivalent to the thing signified. I do not believe the sign regenerates. I do not believe one needs to have the sign to be saved. However, talking of the parents, again I say, it does reflect one's heart, one's place in the covenant in respect to being obedient to Gods command in placing the sign upon one's child. I am saying that if the covenant parent refuses to place the sign, scripture shows that God will excommunicate that person and the person who does not get the sign placed upon them. Isn't that what scripture says? *As far as being 'cut off', again, it would mean excommunication from the visible and ultimately from the invisible if the person never repented of the sin.* Why would a true covenanter not repent of a 'great sin' as this?



Wow. No, really.

Why was there not a disclaimer when I signed up stating that if I held to the BCF 1689 then the board owners would consider me apostate and ultimately reprobate if I continued in the sin of credo-baptism?

I realise that many of the paedo-baptists on the board do not hold that position, but Scott has clearly shown (to my mind anyway), that this is his position.

So my question is, why ever was I allowed to join, if I am infected with such heresy?


----------



## Scott Bushey

David,
For the record, If I am wrong on this issue, I will surely repent of it visibly; in sack cloth and ashes. bear with the thread and wait until all the pieces fall. You may be correct, the inconsitancy may be outwardly unavoidable.


----------



## LawrenceU

I'd have to echo David's sentement. Why was I allowed to be a moderator at one point in time? Or, is this a recent thelogical stance?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> I'd have to echo David's sentement. Why was I allowed to be a moderator at one point in time? Or, is this a recent thelogical stance?



Lawrence,
Please refer to my statement above.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dave L_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> I am not confused and am not 'equating ' the two. I never said that the sign is 'equivalent to the thing signified. I do not believe the sign regenerates. I do not believe one needs to have the sign to be saved. However, talking of the parents, again I say, it does reflect one's heart, one's place in the covenant in respect to being obedient to Gods command in placing the sign upon one's child. I am saying that if the covenant parent refuses to place the sign, scripture shows that God will excommunicate that person and the person who does not get the sign placed upon them. Isn't that what scripture says? *As far as being 'cut off', again, it would mean excommunication from the visible and ultimately from the invisible if the person never repented of the sin.* Why would a true covenanter not repent of a 'great sin' as this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. No, really.
> 
> Why was there not a disclaimer when I signed up stating that if I held to the BCF 1689 then the board owners would consider me apostate and ultimately reprobate if I continued in the sin of credo-baptism?
> 
> I realise that many of the paedo-baptists on the board do not hold that position, but Scott has clearly shown (to my mind anyway), that this is his position.
> 
> So my question is, why ever was I allowed to join, if I am infected with such heresy?
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.


----------



## non dignus

Scott,

I take it then that paedobaptist parents are in grave error if the child is not baptized on schedule: 8 days.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Scott,
> 
> I take it then that paedobaptist parents are in grave error if the child is not baptized on schedule: 8 days.



Thats another thread; I don't have a answer for that Dave. I believe I would hold to what the confession states in that regard:

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

*The sign is not the same as the thing signified

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Dave L

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.



I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dave L_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.
> 
> Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...


Everyone wants to take me to the proverbial carpet when my position is crystal clear in light of Gen 17; which everyone has read. 

I do not claim to know Gods elect. I do not believe baptism /the sign regenerates. I do not believe the efficacy is tied to the moment of administration. This 'great sin' can be repented of. The elect will repent of it. According to Gen 17 Dave, the children are cut off and you are showing a sign of apostasy.

As I previously said, in humility, If I am wrong, I will surely, in sack cloth and ashes repent of the error and seek your forgiveness.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Dave, no you're not mistaken. But as credo-baptists we don't agree with that viewpoint. Apparently, most of the paedo-baptists on here don't either.

Well, my other questions went ignored. Maybe this will get an answer. If baptism is a sign/seal/whatever you want to call it, of the covenant just as circumcision used to be; then how did little girls enter into the covenant back in the days of the OLD covenant?

edited for spelling error

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Scott, I don't want to take you to the carpet. I just wanted you to answer my questions. But like it's been said to me, when you want to state "novel" views, expect to be challenged.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

"The elect will repent of it."

Therefore, credo-baptists aren't elect. I'm not as stupid as some may think brother.:bigsmile:


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> If baptism is a sign/seal/whatever you want to call it, of the covenant just as circumcision used to be; then how did little girls enter into the covenant back in the days of the OLD covenant?



Baby boys and girls are born into the covenant. 
Therefore the sign is given to them as directed.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> If baptism is a sign/seal/whatever you want to call it, of the covenant just as circumcision used to be; then how did little girls enter into the covenant back in the days of the OLD covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby boys and girls are born into the covenant.
> Therefore the sign is given to them as directed.
Click to expand...


So little girls were circumcised? 

All of this begs the question? Has the Church replaced Israel? Remember, this was a covenant with Jewish people. If the Church has replaced Israel, then we are in for tough times during the Great Tribulation, no?


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.



This is an incredible statement. 

So if a credo-baptist has his babies baptized than all is well. Of course, they are no longer credo....


----------



## Dave L

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dave L_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.
> 
> Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to take me to the proverbial carpet when my position is crystal clear in light of Gen 17; which everyone has read.
> 
> I do not claim to know Gods elect. I do not believe baptism /the sign regenerates. I do not believe the efficacy is tied to the moment of administration. This 'great sin' can be repented of. The elect will repent of it. According to Gen 17 Dave, the children are cut off and you are showing a sign of apostasy.
> 
> As I previously said, in humility, If I am wrong, I will surely, in sack cloth and ashes repent of the error and seek your forgiveness.
Click to expand...


Scott, I haven't made my position clear - for that I apolgise.

I do not want to take you to the proverbial carpet - this is your board, and I'm just a guest here, but I did want to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.

I now do understand what you are saying. Whether I agree with it or not is a different matter, but at least I understand your position.

Thank you.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> If baptism is a sign/seal/whatever you want to call it, of the covenant just as circumcision used to be; then how did little girls enter into the covenant back in the days of the OLD covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby boys and girls are born into the covenant.
> Therefore the sign is given to them as directed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So little girls were circumcised?
> 
> All of this begs the question? Has the Church replaced Israel? Remember, this was a covenant with Jewish people. If the Church has replaced Israel, then we are in for tough times during the Great Tribulation, no?
Click to expand...


Hi Brian,

(I forgot to salute in previous post)

I don't want to divert the thread. In answer, we are all children of Abraham. That promise hasn't changed. The category here is Abrahamic, not Mosaic.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Hi David. Don't worry, it's cool.

I don't think you would be diverting the thread. I don't want to go off on a Great Tribulation tangent, I was just trying to make a point. We are children of Abraham, I agree. But I believe the new covenant has wiped out the old. Whereas back then, physical things were done as a type or sign; today everything is spiritual. Physical families back then were a type of the spiritual family (the church) today. Back then a father's faith was enough; today faith needs to be personal. I am open to being shown if I'm wrong; right now I just don't believe I am.


----------



## non dignus

Brian,

I think Scott is doing us a great service in bringing our attention to a hard saying on an important subject. I have to admit I ain't hearin' much scriptural support from the baptist side to counter his argument from Gen 17.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

I don't know if he's doing a great service though David. Even other paedo-baptists don't completely agree with him.

Well, I've used a confession of faith in support of my position (as others do). I've used my knowledge gained from the Bible (that being that we are under a new covenant now, a better one than the old one). I can post Scripture too. But what would it matter? We don't agree on the Scripture. The Scriptures Scott has given are surprisingly, all Old Testament, written to and for Jewish people, and applying to the old covenant. I can post as much Scripture as I can and it won't matter. We disagree on what is applicable today and what is not.


----------



## Ivan

Well, we Baptists are trying to understand what Scott is saying. Obviously there are a good number of Presbyterians that don't agree with them.

Tell you what, get this straighten out among the Presbyterians and those similar and then we can talk about what Baptists believe.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Well, we Baptists are trying to understand what Scott is saying. Obviously there are a good number of Presbyterians that don't agree with them.
> 
> Tell you what, get this straighten out among the Presbyterians and those similar and then we can talk about what Baptists believe.



Let's straighten this out together. We will all profit as we dig deeper into God's word. This is the beauty of PB, when different communions are able to learn from one another. (Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> (Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)



Excuse me?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dave L_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.
> 
> Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to take me to the proverbial carpet when my position is crystal clear in light of Gen 17; which everyone has read.
> 
> I do not claim to know Gods elect. I do not believe baptism /the sign regenerates. I do not believe the efficacy is tied to the moment of administration. This 'great sin' can be repented of. The elect will repent of it. According to Gen 17 Dave, the children are cut off and you are showing a sign of apostasy.
> 
> As I previously said, in humility, If I am wrong, I will surely, in sack cloth and ashes repent of the error and seek your forgiveness.
Click to expand...


Your position takes no account of Genesis 15! Abraham was *in covenant* with God *before* the sign was applied. The same for Isaac, the same for Ishmael. The sign gives an outward indication of he truth.

There is no avoiding the fact that if you say the unbaptized are cut off from the *invisible*church and covenant, that they are unsaved and hell-bound. That means that baptism saves, period. This directly contradicts WCF 28.5, and frankly, is the positon of the most prominent FV adovocates.

That is why Rev. Winzer continues to try and get you to distinguish between outward and inward, covenant privileges and union with Christ.

For the record:


I am not saying that baptism is not important
I am not saying that there are no consequences to disobeying God's command
I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
[/list=1]


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> [*]I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
> [*]I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
> [/list=1]



Hmmm....


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> (Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
Click to expand...


Are we in different communions?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Your position takes no account of Genesis 15! Abraham was *in covenant* with God *before* the sign was applied. The same for Isaac, the same for Ishmael. The sign gives an outward indication of he truth.



I agree. I have no problem with that; of course Moses knew this as well Fred when he penned the passage in Gen 17.



> There is no avoiding the fact that if you say the unbaptized are cut off from the *invisible*church and covenant, that they are unsaved and hell-bound.



I earlier provided passages that equate _uncircumcision_ w/ uncleanliness. As well, the passover was to be held from the guilty offenders. What is your definition of excommunication? 

Ch 30 of the WCF reads:

I. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

1. Isa. 9:6-7; Col. 1:18; I Tim. 5:17; I Thess. 5:12; Acts 20:17, 28; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; Eph. 4:11-12; I Cor. 12:28; Matt. 28:18-20; John 18:36

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

2. Matt. 16:19; 18:17-18; John 20:21-23; II Cor. 2:6-8

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]

3. I Cor. 5:1-13; 11:27-34; I Tim. 1:20; 5:20; Matt. 7:6; Jude 1:23

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]

4. I Thess. 5:12; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; I Cor. 5:4-5, 13; Matt. 18:17; Titus 3:10

What exactly does the word 'demerit' indicate?



> That means that baptism saves, period.



No. Baptism and adherence to Gods command is a reflection of what God has already accomplished or will accomplish in His covenantal people.



> This directly contradicts WCF 28.5, and frankly, is the positon of the most prominent FV adovocates.



I did not know that; I studied this on my own w/ no help from any outside sources other than my pastor, N. Lee and Gods word.



> That is why Rev. Winzer continues to try and get you to distinguish between outward and inward, covenant privileges and union with Christ.



Fred,
What was Moses thinking???



> For the record:
> 
> 
> I am not saying that baptism is not important
> I am not saying that there are no consequences to disobeying God's command
> I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
> I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
> [/list=1]





Did you look at the quotes I provided above from Rutherford?




[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> (Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we in different communions?
Click to expand...


One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism


----------



## Dan....

Scott,

As you still seem to think that no one has dealt with Genesis 17, and since you have not responded to Pastor Winzer in the below quote (and I do understand, you do have a lot of people to respond to), I am bringing back this post from page 9 that you may or may not have missed, yet did not respond to.



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?
> 
> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It requires that those who are not circumcised be cut off from the people of God as a visible church. Two points.
> 
> 1. "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant." Calvin says this perpetuity is fulfilled in Christ. Hence there was something typical in this, which applied only to Abraham's physical children. Otherwise we are bound to circumcision and baptism cannot come in its place.
> 
> 2. Insofar as baptism has come in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, it is to be given to those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and to their children. Those who neglect it are sinning greatly, and should be warned of the great danger of neglecting the ordinances of God, lest their hearts be hardened and they receive (that is, by profession) the grace of God in vain. The church may withhold the Lord's supper from such as a means of discipline; but it is not a pronouncement that they are excluded from the kingdom of God. The Corinthians who were punished with death for abusing the Lord's supper were said to have been judged that they should not be condemned with the world.
> 
> Calvin's comment on Gen. 17:14 provides prudent advice in this matter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Campbellism is the exact opposite of what Calvin advises, teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dan....

Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]



Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.
Click to expand...


True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."
Click to expand...


I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Scott,
> 
> As you still seem to think that no one has dealt with Genesis 17, and since you have not responded to Pastor Winzer in the below quote (and I do understand, you do have a lot of people to respond to), I am bringing back this post from page 9 that you may or may not have missed, yet did not respond to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?
> 
> Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It requires that those who are not circumcised be cut off from the people of God as a visible church. Two points.
> 
> 1. "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant." Calvin says this perpetuity is fulfilled in Christ. Hence there was something typical in this, which applied only to Abraham's physical children. Otherwise we are bound to circumcision and baptism cannot come in its place.
> 
> 2. Insofar as baptism has come in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, it is to be given to those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and to their children. Those who neglect it are sinning greatly, and should be warned of the great danger of neglecting the ordinances of God, lest their hearts be hardened and they receive (that is, by profession) the grace of God in vain. The church may withhold the Lord's supper from such as a means of discipline; but it is not a pronouncement that they are excluded from the kingdom of God. The Corinthians who were punished with death for abusing the Lord's supper were said to have been judged that they should not be condemned with the world.
> 
> Calvin's comment on Gen. 17:14 provides prudent advice in this matter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Campbellism is the exact opposite of what Calvin advises, teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Dan,
Here's the part Rev Winzer left out; it precedes the entry he provided and very relevant to my position:

Calvin writes:



> 14. And the uncircumcised man-child In order that circumcision might be the more attended to, God denounces a severe punishment on any one who should neglect it. And as this shows God´s great care for the salvation of men; so, on the other hand, it rebukes their negligence. For since God thus benignantly offers a pledge of his love, and of eternal life, for what purpose does he add threatening but to rouse the sluggishness of those whose duty it is to run with diligence? Therefore, this denunciation of punishment virtually charges men with foul ingratitude, because they either reject or despise the grace of God. The passage however teaches, that such contempt shall not pass unpunished. And since God threatens punishment only to despisers, we infer that the uncircumcision of children would do them no harm, if they died before the eighth day. For the bare promise of God was effectual to their salvation. He did not so attest this salvation by external signs, as to restrict his own effectual working to those signs. Moses, indeed, sets aside all controversy on this subject, by adducing as a reason, that they would make void the covenant of God: for we know, that the covenant was not violated, when the power of keeping it was taken away. Let us then consider, that the salvation of the race of Abraham was included in that expression, "˜I will be a God to thy seed.´ And although circumcision was added as a confirmation, it nevertheless did not deprive the word of its force and efficacy. But because it is not in the power of man to sever what God has joined together; no one could despise or neglect the sign, without both rejecting the word itself; and depriving himself of the benefit therein offered. And therefore the Lord punished bare neglect with such severity. But if any infants were deprived by death of the tokens of salvation, he spared them, because they had done nothing derogatory to the covenant of God. The same reasoning is at this day in force respecting baptism. Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful.



[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew,
> I never said that baptism was needed to be 'saved'; I did say that by being faithful to Gods command is a reflection of *one's place in the covenant; whether that be visible or invisible. You seem to be confusing salvation concepts with covenant concepts*; Or possibly I am not being clear enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, at least as I think most of us understand the term, membership in the _invisible_ covenant IS salvation. It is possible to confuse salvation with _visible_ covenant concepts (i.e. confusing the invisible and visible covenant) - but not with invisible; for salvation is precisely that to which membership in the invisible covenant refers.
> 
> Do you agree that what the "invisible covenant" refers to is those who are saved? That is certainly the historic Reformed concept of what the invisible covenant is (as opposed to the visible), and I would be willing to bet that is how most people here are using it as well. At any rate, I trust that is at least _not_ how you were using the term when you answered Matthew's question by saying, "Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election." If the invisible covenant membership is understood to mean the collection of those people who are justified and saved, that statement would in fact be saying that Reformed Baptists who fail to baptize their children are all in fact unregenerate and unjustified until and unless they change their practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> I guess I am saying that about the parents who are unfaithful to Gods command; can it be both ways? This is not to say that ALL credo's would fall into this category.
Click to expand...


I think I understand your last statement in light of this:



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign _on their child_. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.



Now, as you have agreed to, and as WCF 28.5 makes clear, having baptism *oneself* is not a requirement for salvation. Yet you seem to be saying that baptizing all of one's *children* _IS_ such a requirement, or a litmus test of sorts based on who is regenerate and justified. Compare those two beliefs, and see if they make any sense in light of each other: Does it make any sense to say that 1) someone who, for some reason, completely neglects getting baptized themselves their entire life can still be elect and saved (as per WCF 28.5 and your agreement), but that on the other hand 2) someone who does not baptize his children, and dies still believing that was the right thing to do, is not saved and therefore was not elect?

Also, in light of your apparent affirmation of #2 above due to your interpretation of Genesis 17:14 applying to the invisible covenant as well as the visible, I'm curious to know - how would you go about refuting someone who disagreed with #1 above, and was trying to say that being baptized oneself is a requirement for salvation?

Also, as per your reply to Fred above, I understand you are not saying that baptism saves _per se_, but rather that "Baptism and adherence to Gods command is a reflection of what God has already accomplished or will accomplish in His covenantal people." It is good that you have at least distinguished between those two claims, and made it clear that you are not saying baptism saves; but in the practical outworking of the beliefs, they are essentially saying close to the same thing. If all those for whom God has accomplished redemption will either give the sign to their children or else later wish that they would have, then pracicing paedobaptism is nothing short of a litmus test for salvation with regard to credobaptists who have children. That has horrific implications.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.
Click to expand...


You agree??? So your whole argument about Genesis 17 just crumbled. 

You said that baptists who do not baptize their children are cut off from the covenant community per Gen 17. Yet here you agree that this uncircumcised nation was not cut off from the covenant community for not being circumcised and for not circumcising their children. Doesn't that sound a bit inconsistant?


----------



## crhoades

Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dan,
I believe that the distinction needs to be made in this case as Israel the nation and Israel the congregation. Israel was so into their rebellion and ultimately the leadership was to blame. Gods people perish for lack of knowledge, and in this regard, Joshua was as well part of the problem. What I agree with, was that there was a remnant and there will always be a remnnant; and we don't know who the elect are, even in conditions as such.

Quit trying to pigeon hole me 

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]



Chris,
Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.

*Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

More from Calvin:



> He hath broken my covenant For the covenant of God is ratified, when by faith we embrace what he promises. Should any one object, that infants were guiltless of this fault, because they hitherto were destitute of reason: I answer, we ought not to press this divine declaration too closely, as if God held the infants as chargeable with a fault of their own: but we must observe the antithesis, that as God adopts the infant son in the person of his father, so when the father repudiates such a benefit, the infant is said to cut himself off from the Church. For the meaning of the expression is this, "˜He shall be blotted out from the people whom God had chosen to himself´. The explanation of some, that they who remained in uncircumcision would not be Jews, and would have no place in the census of that people, is too frigid. We must go farther, and say, that God, indeed, will not acknowledge those as among his people, who will not bear the mark and token of adoption.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.
> 
> *Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


So for the sake of thoroughness...

Here comes not the _reductio ad hitlerum_ but rather the _reductio ad Spurgeonum_. 

If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.

Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.



I have read every post. I'm trying to follow up on the thought of this view being tied to the FV. I'm interacting with the fact that you just said that the justified _will_ place the sign on their children. I understand that you are trying to distinguish between soteriological and covenantal issues. Just trying to see if you collapse them back together at points. 

I would rather you just dialog with the question with the simple yes or no and then qualify your answer as much as you like.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.



Reminds me of a dance not too long ago around the question, "Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?"


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.
> 
> *Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for the sake of thoroughness...
> 
> Here comes not the _reductio ad hitlerum_ but rather the _reductio ad Spurgeonum_.
> 
> If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.
> 
> Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]
Click to expand...


Chris,

Scott obviously does not want to answer, because the clear implication of his position is "yes," whilst he desires to say some kind of heavily qualified "no."

I expect that we must hold our breath after a man makes a profession of faith in Christ, to see if he will "really persevere" through the work of baptizing his children. If not, he was not really elect, because "teh elect persevere."

Clearly contrary to Galatians 5:1-6



> For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love[/b]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
If you have read the thread then you would not be asking the question; I've already clarified that numerous times.


----------



## beej6

Speaking into the air (and after finally catching up with most of this thread):

I am thinking of a mythical Reformed Baptist church called the Almost There Baptist Church, whose congregation consists solely of parents and their seventeen year old children. All of the children will celebrate their 18th birthday tomorrow, September 3rd, 2006, and with a profession of faith, will all be baptized during the worship service. (The name of the church will also be changed to the Always Ready Baptist Church. :bigsmile

From the gist of this thread, then, Scott would say that today, all the parents are covenant breakers. I would submit that after Sunday's worship service, all the parents are no longer covenant breakers. True?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of a dance not too long ago around the question, "Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?"
Click to expand...


I don't know why it was so tough getting an answer to that question???


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.
> 
> *Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for the sake of thoroughness...
> 
> Here comes not the _reductio ad hitlerum_ but rather the _reductio ad Spurgeonum_.
> 
> If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.
> 
> Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Scott obviously does not want to answer, because the clear implication of his position is "yes," whilst he desires to say some kind of heavily qualified "no."
> 
> I expect that we must hold our breath after a man makes a profession of faith in Christ, to see if he will "really persevere" through the work of baptizing his children. If not, he was not really elect, because "teh elect persevere."
> 
> Clearly contrary to Galatians 5:1-6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love[/b]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Fred,
I would appreciate it if you would quit bearing false witness against me that I am not guilty of; I never said that antipaedobaptists are unsaved; a number of times. I have been quite clear in whom I see as in error.


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

One cannot be cut off from the internal/invisible covenant and be saved. You have stated several times that those who do not baptize their children are cut off from *both* the visible and invisible covenant.

So if I am bearing false witness help me by answering this directly:

Are credobaptists cut off from the invisible covenant?


----------



## crhoades

Antipaedo's with children who don't baptize them, correct?


----------



## Kaalvenist

Scott,

Would you be able to make a single post in which you bring together and summarize your thoughts on this subject? This thread is getting rather long and difficult to follow; and after making numerous posts last night trying to get a direct answer from you about the regeneracy of Anti-paedobaptists, I think that it would simply be more helpful to all of us (yourself included) if you would summarize all of your thoughts in a single post.

Please note, I am not asking you to quote Gen. 17, or Exod. 12, or Calvin, or Rutherford, or ask whether God will ever again destroy the world by water. I am asking that you put down your thoughts on this subject, as complete as they are at this moment, in a regular, systematic manner.

Thank you.


----------



## Arch2k

I have been reading through this thread and will try to offer a couple of observations.

1) I think that Scott's position has to do more with the CoG (as distinguished from the CoR), the visible church, and the divided sense than the it does judging if someone is elect, justified, or even a part of the invisible church. 

Scott, this is what I am understanding from your position, although at times you seem to contradict it.

2) Also, excommunication or church censures also deal very closely with what is being discussed since it assumes that a person was at one point a part of the visible church, visible covenant *and then cut off*. Is it possible for a person to be justified and not a part of the visible church? Not the norm, but yes.




> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> 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]
> 
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> 
> 4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
> 5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
> 6. Acts 2:47



So even if someone is cut-off from the covenant, it is not as though this person might not be justified in the sight of God and a true believer, but with the lack of repentance they are not to be *considered* as having the benefits of Christ's work (although objectively in the eyes of Christ they may be).

3) The unforgivable sin. Is it failure to recognize the need to apply the sign of the covenant to your seed? There are a multitude of sins that Christians committ everyday _without repentance_ that are covered by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, the sign of the covenant is a more grievious sin than most "everyday" sins, but nonetheless, is it equated to that one sin which cannot be forgiven?

4) Church membership. As the WCF says, it is a grevious sin to neglect one's seed for the sign of baptism, and therefore I would not think it wise for the church to accept into memebership those who refuse such an ordinance. If one did, church disipline would have to be (or SHOULD be) performed on the party and eventually, without repentance, the party would be (should be) excommunicated.

5) Practicing homosexuals. Suppose for the sake of argument, that one professes the exact same doctrines as you do. If he professed the true reformed religion, would you allow him into church? Would you consider them justified? Is this the unforgivable sin? Is one required to be straight in order to be saved? Sola Fide or Sola Fide + Sola Straightness? 

Note: This last point is made in all seriousness, and is not meant to be crude, course jesting or any other such thing. It is meant to equate what Presbyterians believe to be a gross sin, to what is universally held amongst Christians to be a gross sin.

These are just some thoughts and observations as this thread progresses. I understand more and more the position that Scott is expounding, but at the same time have very cautious reservations.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> One cannot be cut off from the internal/invisible covenant and be saved. You have stated several times that those who do not baptize their children are cut off from *both* the visible and invisible covenant.
> 
> So if I am bearing false witness help me by answering this directly:
> 
> Are credobaptists cut off from the invisible covenant?



I have only scripture to go by Fred. Only God knows His elect. A man who refuses to place the sign upon his child as God commands is cut off; he is excommunicated. As per the WCF, 'demerited'. If he remains in the excommunicated status, one has to believe that that person is either apostate or reprobate. Where else is there to go? So, specifically, all credobaptists are not guilty of this error.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I have been reading through this thread and will try to offer a couple of observations.
> 
> 1) I think that Scott's position has to do more with the CoG (as distinguished from the CoR), the visible church, and the divided sense than the it does judging if someone is elect, justified, or even a part of the invisible church.
> 
> Scott, this is what I am understanding from your position, although at times you seem to contradict it.
> 
> 2) Also, excommunication or church censures also deal very closely with what is being discussed since it assumes that a person was at one point a part of the visible church, visible covenant *and then cut off*. Is it possible for a person to be justified and not a part of the visible church? Not the norm, but yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> 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]
> 
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> 
> 4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
> 5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
> 6. Acts 2:47
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even if someone is cut-off from the covenant, it is not as though this person might not be justified in the sight of God and a true believer, but with the lack of repentance they are not to be *considered* as having the benefits of Christ's work (although objectively in the eyes of Christ they may be).
> 
> 3) The unforgivable sin. Is it failure to recognize the need to apply the sign of the covenant to your seed? There are a multitude of sins that Christians committ everyday _without repentance_ that are covered by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, the sign of the covenant is a more grievious sin than most "everyday" sins, but nonetheless, is it equated to that one sin which cannot be forgiven?
> 
> 4) Church membership. As the WCF says, it is a grevious sin to neglect one's seed for the sign of baptism, and therefore I would not think it wise for the church to accept into memebership those who refuse such an ordinance. If one did, church disipline would have to be (or SHOULD be) performed on the party and eventually, without repentance, the party would be (should be) excommunicated.
> 
> 5) Practicing homosexuals. Suppose for the sake of argument, that one professes the exact same doctrines as you do. If he professed the true reformed religion, would you allow him into church? Would you consider them justified? Is this the unforgivable sin? Is one required to be straight in order to be saved? Sola Fide or Sola Fide + Sola Straightness?
> 
> Note: This last point is made in all seriousness, and is not meant to be crude, course jesting or any other such thing. It is meant to equate what Presbyterians believe to be a gross sin, to what is universally held amongst Christians to be a gross sin.
> 
> These are just some thoughts and observations as this thread progresses. I understand more and more the position that Scott is expounding, but at the same time have very cautious reservations.
Click to expand...


Jeff,
Thank you for helping; Without having to put a lot of thought into what you've posted it is accurate if not close. The only thing I would add is something I mentioned much earlier in the thread; that being, there is a big difference between someone sinning and being _in_ covenant w/ God and out of covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stats:



> Member of the Day is Scott Bushey with 49 posts



This is suprising?


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but *no longer promised to them* (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You agree??? So your whole argument about Genesis 17 just crumbled.
> 
> You said that baptists who do not baptize their children are cut off from the covenant community per Gen 17. Yet here you agree that this uncircumcised nation was not cut off from the covenant community for not being circumcised and for not circumcising their children. Doesn't that sound a bit inconsistant?
Click to expand...


The wilderness episode may not be a good analogy for this debate. The covenant community was in transition. 

*Deuteronomy 8*

"_ 1. All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah sware unto your fathers. 
2. And thou shalt remember all the way which Jehovah thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or not. 
3. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live. _"

This was an extraordinary phase of redemptive history; God honoring His covenant with the patriarchs, compounded by this interim period after Sinai and before entrance into the promised land.

The question is thus raised: Are we in a similar trial period now?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> Speaking into the air (and after finally catching up with most of this thread):
> 
> I am thinking of a mythical Reformed Baptist church called the Almost There Baptist Church, whose congregation consists solely of parents and their seventeen year old children. All of the children will celebrate their 18th birthday tomorrow, September 3rd, 2006, and with a profession of faith, will all be baptized during the worship service. (The name of the church will also be changed to the Always Ready Baptist Church. :bigsmile
> 
> From the gist of this thread, then, Scott would say that today, all the parents are covenant breakers. I would submit that after Sunday's worship service, all the parents are no longer covenant breakers. True?



BJ,
Good question. I would submit that if the parents remained in a rebelious state, i.e they still reject Gods command to place the sign, even though the adult seed was now submitting to the ordinance, then they would still be breaking covenant ultimately. For instance, we earlier spoke of Joshua; if a family member, after crossing over the Jordan rejected still the command, that father was 'cut off'; he has broken Gods covenant, even if one of his grown chidren submitted to the ordinance. he is still in his rebellion.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Honestly, I can't believe what I'm hearing from elders all across the board. It demonstrates that many ought to get out of the pulpit and into the pew.

You guys should be smarter than that.

Fred, I can't believe you presumed to tell Scott he's saying "FV" stuff. 

Listen, if I sin today, and I don't repent of that sin (whatever it is), I'm BREAKING COVENANT with God.

*Are you all that obtuse to be saying that you don't get that?*

No one here believes that one had to be baptized to be saved.

Baptism is covenantal, salvation is soteriological.

I'm TELLING you all, the biggest problem in this thread is a hermeneutic problem of understanding how to differentiate things in God's eternal counsel, and the practical application of that in TIME under the Covenant of Grace. 

REALLY, its not about baptism, signs, circumcision, OT vs NT, etc.

Its about how you handle the DECREES OF GOD in salvation, with the OUTWORKING of those decrees in *time* PRACTICALLY among the visible church COVENANTALLY.

If you can't agree on your hermeneutics, this thread will go on forever.

Go argue about how one deals with that hermeneutical issue.

Let me give you a practical example:

_Credo baptists are covenant breakers and on the road of apostasy, and may be apostate, if they do not repent._

Is this God's eternal decree, or the practical outworking of how the visible church works (i.e. what the Confession says about it being a "great sin")?

Let's say this EXACT same thing in a different way:

_You sinned today and broke covenant with God, are on the road of apostasy and may be apostate if you do not repent._

Think through that.

Can those who continue in sin (forget the decrees of God that we don't know about) go to heaven?

If we can't deal practically with that problem and question, then elders have no VISIBLE basis for excommunication at any time. You could never excommunicate anyone! This "credo" covenant breaking question is not salvation oriented, its ECCLESIASTICALLY oriented (i.e. covenantal).

Now we are on a WHOLE other plain of theological conversation where this thread should have gone.

Instead, you're arguing in different ballparks altogether because you have missed the hermeneutical rule of how the compound and divided sense of Scripture works.

Without that key, you won't get anywhere (and haven't for 12 pages).

If this does not go somewhere good soon, I'll close it.


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Some quick observations from one who has been on both sides of the issue:

1.	FIRST: It seems Scott is coming from a position that in Scripture ONLY one "œview" is truly scripturally driven.

2.	This is contra some posts that tend to say some form of "œyour view versus our view" and then blather on. This a form of subtle relativism under the guise of "œkeeping the peace" and "œkeeping one false position viable". It´s always easier to say, "œYour way works for you and my way works for me", and go on carelessly. That´s not to be "œmean" but show some sobering light here.

3.	As a principle it is crucial to really understand without saying which position in specific is truly biblical; that at the end of the day either children of believers are commanded by God to be baptized or not, and to not do so or to do so is a great sin. For there is no middle ground period. Else baptism becomes nothing from either position if there is middle ground. One might argue in the PC church of America today this is so, peace at the sacrifice of defending the faith, specifically defending the faith in baptism in this case.

4.	I say that because often "œyour view Vs. my view" is given to excuse a false view and pretend a fellowship that really doesn´t exist. Because at the end of the day, the issue of baptism is NOT a non-essential but a battle for the very Gospel itself and to lay that down is perilous. 

5.	Scott here is getting falsely castigated for THAT and he has repeatedly alluded it this way: In principle he is saying there is not "œyour understanding or view" and "œmy understanding or view" but God´s.

6.	SECOND: The specific issue seems to be a difference between throwing off Christ by not baptizing children (the covenant of grace) in a despising way versus ignorance in understanding of the Scriptures.

7.	That is are they cut off only when they truly in full knowledge despise the covenant and the sign this way OR are they also cut off if they only do so due to centuries of ignorance allowed to propagate the devil´s devices leading generations of God´s people to this day some 500+ years post reformation into a position of not baptizing their children?

8.	In short do they despise the covenant of Grace and the Gospel in this way or are they ignorant of it?

9.	This leads us to: Certainly if one openly despises, then they´d be cut off.

10.	But if it is pure ignorance due to the devil´s influence and the old flesh we all battle with, then are they cut off?

Number 10 is the question that should be sought to answer. I answer it this way. I don´t think they are cut off but the position is perilous. However, the answer lies in not confronting them with "œMy law and obedience is better than yours". Why? Anytime we fallen creatures proffer forth religion in a legal way unto merit we murder each other. The facts of history inside and outside of the church are without viable argument against this. The answer lies in showing them the Gospel IN baptism, not "œmy better obedience" or "œPresbyterians better obedience" than Baptist´s. Because the latter will always lead to war and battle (I´m more obedient to God than you), pride and worthless pursuit. The former, showing the Gospel in it will lead to showing its truth for the elect will always seek the Cross as a moth to light. If the Baptist is shown and UNDERSTANDS this, he sees the Gospel in it, he will, perhaps slowly at first because its not easy (trust me I know), inevitably change and baptize his children. But until then he cannot because the Gospel is not seen by him there for his children, yet. However, once he sees it "“ it will be as irresistible as the first time he himself self beheld the Cross and came to Christ.

If the Baptist sees the Gospel in Holy Baptism for him and his child, that it is God´s gift, then he will see why it is a great sin to not do so. It´s not a great sin because to "œnot do it" you will "œnot merit" grace (which is why they struggle with it), but by "œnot doing it" you are hurting yourself by not taking hold of the Gospel via the waters of baptism for your children and yourself. Never forget that the Baptist view of baptism not only hurts their children but themselves, because it means something different to them than a means of grace. This is why Luther said if we fail to baptize children it will at length loose its true witness, the Gospel. And similarly Calvin when he said of the Anabaptist of his day that it will be of no avail to them.

Perhaps in principle it may help this way: We all would say it is a great sin, even the unforgivable sin, to not trust the Gospel. The "œcommand" to believe the Gospel comes in a "œcommanding" form, but not a meritorious law form of command (do this and live). Rather the commanding is necessary due to the limits of language, but the command "œto believe" is simply this, "œHERE is the food of life, I´m giving it to you, EAT IT, don´t be stupid, your dying, EAT IT and LIVE.". Now I´m sort of "œcommanding" there, but I´m not saying, "œIF you obey you will merit the offer". But rather, "œYou are dying fool, eat this, stop rolling back over in your grave and enjoying your death"¦Its yours, take, eat!!!" The command is more of a plea along with giving what it offers without merit, buying without money or capital. So, to fail to believe the Gospel thus commanded in a giving way is not to fail to merit something but a spurning of the free gift. That´s a big difference.

Thus, if the Baptist can begin to see that the "œcommand to baptize", mark, their children with the Gospel, the covenant of Grace, is really a spurning of a free gift being given for him and his child, and not a denying of a meritorious command, then he will eventually flee to receive it for the Baptist loves Christ too!

A warning to some Presbyterians here of which I am now days; be careful how and what you teach. If you legally attempt to draw the Baptist to baptize their children, and one can do this even using "grace" language and taxonomy (and I´ve very much made this mistake so I´m not being hypocritical) you will push them away further. And rightly so, for if they perceive it as Law and merit, they shouldn´t receive it so wrongly understood and taught, you would be just making a legal path out of baptism and they are right to reject that. You may have the form of baptism correct, baptizing your child, but you have it wrong if you yourself do not understand that the Gospel is in it and given to our children. 

No, we should seek our Baptist brother´s and their children´s best interest, if you yourself TRULY love them and their children; and that is to bring them to a RICHER understanding and more fortified grasp of the Gospel in the Word and the two Sacraments. We should teach them the Gospel in it so that they are built up. We should seek that their children be baptized not as to a legal merit of "œobeying a command correctly", but to be brought to the Gospel IN Baptism. So that they no longer understand, "œUpon YOUR PROFESSION OF FAITH I baptize you"¦" But rather "œUpon THE GRACIOUS PROMISE OF GOD I baptize you (child or adult) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The former gives no Gospel to anyone hearing but points to a faith that may or may not be saving. No one is saved by "faith" but Christ in which faith receives, then why make baptism point to that by the institutional words if baptism is to point to Christ. The later gives the Gospel afresh to every ear hearing it "“ the promise of God of eternal life and cleansing of all sin by Christ´s blood. The later is EXACTLY how Peter instituted it in Acts 2, "œ"¦For the PROMISE is to you, and your children and to all who are far off (and their children too) to whom the Lord our God calls". Peter did not institute it upon faith but Christ and His Gospel.

If they SEE that, then they will come to baptism not just for their children but understand it for THEMSELVES in a Gospel way and their faith will grow. But if you argue with them in a legal way, then Satan is all the more pleased. For they will stay far away from the Gospel in baptism for themselves and their children, and perhaps you, though you baptize your children, really are just as far away from the Gospel in Baptism and the covenant of grace you claim to treasure, even though you baptize your children. Thus, Satan's war on the Gospel is propogated on both sides and we find ourselves not at all, Baptist or Presbyterians, that far away from Rome.

Blessings and peace to all,

Larry H.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Puritanhead

*The Reformers on Baptism* - from my May 18 blogspot:


> Though, many Reformers continued to practice the doctrine of paedo-baptism (viz. infant baptism) or baptism by sprinkling as was the practice in the Roman church. However, many among those prominent Reformers readily conceded that baptism by immersion was the ancient, apostolic and established mode of baptism. Martin Luther wrote: "Baptism is a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word means and the mystery signifies." The respected church history chronicler Philip Schaff avowed, "Luther sought to restore immersion, but without effect" (History of the Christian Church. Vol. II, p. 251). Although, John Calvin admitted infant baptism by sprinkling was among the proper modes, he asserted that baptism by submersion was the practice of the early church and the Apostles. Calvin wrote: "The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church" (Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, Chapter XV). William Tyndale proclaimed belief in believer's baptism, declaring, "Baptism was a plunging into the water. Baptism to avail must include repentance, faith, and confession. The Church must, therefore, consist of believers."


 Calvin and Luther apparently advocated covenant-breaking too. 

C.H. Spurgeon exhorts believers:


> Even small inconsistencies are dangerous. Little thorns make great blisters, little moths destroy fine garments, and little frivolities and little rogueries will rob religion of a thousand joys.


 The little inconsistencies and ambiguity in the positions articulated are starting to cause great blisters.


----------



## fredtgreco

Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not break*ing* covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).

No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.

Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is *not* elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.

WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.


----------



## Pilgrim

Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the *invisible* covenant tantamount to Arminianism?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the *invisible* covenant tantamount to Arminianism?



If an Arminian dies in his Arminianism, was he elect?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
I have said a number of times that the elect will not fall away. The elect will persevere; the elect will repent and obey God.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not break*ing* covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).
> 
> No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.
> 
> Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is *not* elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.
> 
> WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.



Gods elect will submit to His will; the elect cannot fall away Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the *invisible* covenant tantamount to Arminianism?



Yes. It denies the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints:



> WCF 17:1-3 WCF 17.1 They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, *can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace;* but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.(1)
> 
> (1) Phil. 1:6; 2 Pet. 1:10; John 10:28,29; 1 John 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:5,9.
> 
> WCF 17.2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but *upon the immutability of the decree of election*, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;(1) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ;(2) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them;(3) and the nature of the covenant of grace4) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.(5)
> 
> (1) 2 Tim. 2:18,19; Jer. 31:3.
> (2) Heb. 10:10,14; Heb. 13:20,21; Heb. 9:12-15; Rom. 8:33-39; John 17:11,24; Luke 22:32; Heb. 7:25.
> (3) John 14:16,17; 1 John 2:27; 1 John 3:9.
> (4) Jer. 32:40.
> (5) John 10:28; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 2:19.
> 
> WCF 17.3 Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into *grievous sins*;(1) and, for a time, continue therein2) *whereby they incur God's displeasure,(3) and grieve His Holy Spirit,(4) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts;(5) have their hearts hardened,(6) and their consciences wounded;(7) hurt and scandalize others,(8) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves*.(9)
> 
> (1) Matt. 26:70,72,74.
> (2) Ps. 51title) , 14.
> (3) Isa. 64:5,7,9; 2 Sam. 11:27.
> (4) Eph. 4:30.
> (5) Ps. 51:8,10.12; Rev. 2:4; Cant. 5:2,3,4,6.
> (6) Isa. 63:17; Mark 6:52; Mark 16:14.
> (7) Ps. 32:3,4; Ps. 51:8.
> (8) 2 Sam. 12:14.
> (9) Ps. 89:31,32; 1 Cor. 11:32.



This is one of the cruxes of FV theology. Notice in the rejoinder to Lousianna Presbytery's vindication of Wilkins, the key issue was perseverance.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not break*ing* covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).
> 
> No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.
> 
> Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is *not* elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.
> 
> WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods elect will submit to His will; the elect cannot fall away Fred.
Click to expand...


God's elect do not submit to his will in all things at all times. The lives of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter and all the other saints are filled with instances of rebellion, sin and disobedience. Their standing as elect does not depend on their submission to God's will, but on the decree and good pleasure of God.

You keep saying the same thing, and avoiding the clear implicatio of your statement:

If someone does not submit to the will of God, he is not elect, because *Gods elect will submit to His will*. That makes justification dependent on obedience. In this case, baptism. This is exactly FV theoogy.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I have said a number of times that the elect will not fall away. The elect will persevere; the elect will repent and obey God.



Then you appear to be saying that no Baptist is elect unless he performs the work of baptizing his children or repents of his error of being a Baptist before he dies. 

Yesterday I posted this from Dr. Lee, from whose writings you and I have profited much. 



> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> From Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's _Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including *justified Baptists*; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins).
Click to expand...


Scott you here seem to be going beyond Dr. Lee, who is about as polemical a writer as there is on Baptism in our era. Here he refers to justified Baptists. He doesn't say they are apostate. Yes, he gives solemn warning to Baptists as you posted earlier. But I've found nowhere where Dr. Lee says that Baptists will be cut off from the invisible covenant. 

As I posted earlier, teaching that someone can be cut off from the invisible covenant is to teach conditional security, hence, Arminianism.


----------



## crhoades

ESV Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
3 *For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--*
4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 *circumcised on the eighth day*, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things. Thanks.

Edit: Since we want to replace circumcision with baptism, would it be fair to substitute the word baptism in the above passage and not change the argument or is that something altogether different?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ESV Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
> 2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
> 3 *For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--*
> 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
> 5 *circumcised on the eighth day*, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
> 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
> 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
> 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
> 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
> 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
> 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
> 12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
> 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
> 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
> 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
> 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
> 
> Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things. Thanks.
> 
> Edit: Since we want to replace circumcision with baptism, would it be fair to substitute the word baptism in the above passage and not change the argument or is that something altogether different?
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]



Chris,

This is exactly on point, and identical to the argument Paul makes in Galatians (which came first to my mind because it is what I am preaching through).


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things.


 The Lord is the one and true faithful covenant-keeper!


> Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.
> "”1 Corinthians 7:18-20 (New King James Version)


 I think if wants to dwell on the sign of the covenant, then ponder its true significance.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Listen, if I sin today, and I don't repent of that sin (whatever it is), I'm BREAKING COVENANT with God.
> 
> *Are you all that obtuse to be saying that you don't get that?*



Which covenant? The CoG (of which the condition is faith alone) or the CoR (of which the condition is Christ's work alone) or the CoW (which we knew a long time ago)? 

Not trying to be smart alekie, but serious in my inquiry.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

"This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election. "

When one says this it would have to be EXCEEDINGLY carefully qualified. Taken at face value its not necessarily a helpful statement because it does not divide between what happens covenantally and what happens soteriologically. 

Overall, this thread is painful and probably should have stopped long ago.


Any sin for any covenant breaker would begin the process of excluding them from fellowship and they would follow down the road of apostasy as dealing with a sinning brother in church. That's Matthew 16 and 18. Sleep with your mother and don't repent, and you'll be excommunicated. Commit any GREAT SIN, and don't repent, and you will be excommunicated. (This includes ANY great sin.)

Do I need to post the same information as before on what Westminster thought concerning Sectarian groups and Independents? Their language is astoundingly harsh.

When a church excommunicates a brother, or treats a brothers as excommunicated, they are handing them over to Satan that they would repent. They treat them, now, not as brothers, but they are handed over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh. If they have tasted the heavenly gift, and been partakers of the Spirit in this regard, and do not repent, Hebrews tells us they no longer have sacrifice for sin via Christ. They are covenant breakers to the degree they are lost, and treated as such. (Again, we are taking ecclesiastically).

Again, this is not a soteriological issue as given in the decrees of God.

This is an ecclesiastical issue where we have to determine whether or not a sin is "a big deal" or a "great sin" in the eyes of the church.

For example, if someone were excommunicated from our church, and I was asked if "they were now saved" I'd have to answer that on TWO different levels. Level 1) According to the decree of God, I have no idea. Maybe yes, maybe no. But that is not where I live. I live in the here and now and have to deal with the issue of excommunication, and according to that, Level 2) I have to treat them as though they are unregenerate. If I don't treat them as a TAX COLLECTOR, then I am sinning against Christ and I need to repent. IF they repent, then they show themselves to me (not to God) to be saved. If they do not repent, I have to assume the worst and pray for the best.

Fred, you should have enough knowledge of Scott to make a determination like this about about his statements and sort it out. Not accusing of him of being a Federal Advocate, which is nonsense.

Do you allow Baptists to join your church or not? If you don't, you already are enacting a form of excommunication on them. I don't know if you practice close communion. We do. So our views on sacraments may be a little different there. But when our church becomes a particular church, only those in communion with us will take of the Supper, protecting the sacrament for the privilege of the church. In excluding others, its a form of excommunication of sorts. I am pressed to treat people in the mold of ecclesiology because I don't have privy information on how God's counsel works. We don't live there and can't make determinations there, so we have to follow biblical protocol. We hand them over to the DEVIL. (sadly)

So when Scott says, ""This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election. "" He is taking a practical step ecclesiastically. In other words, Baptists are not part of our church. We would not allow a Baptist to be part of our church unless they changed their views. The very fact that we believe them to be in error, we would not commune with them in that manner. They are, as the Confession states, "practicing", consistently, without remorse or repentance, a GREAT SIN. What do we practically do with those who do not repent of practicing GREAT SINS? (Is this really that difficult of a question?)

If they were in our church, and then changed their views without repenting, we would HAVE to excommunicate them if they are practicing a GREAT SIN. 

The whole wishy washy "just let them move on to another church so they can worship how they like" is a jettison of conviction at every level for me if I did that, and a reproach against the Biblical Doctrine of Christ's Authority. _Oh no, now we are back to Jus Divinum._ If I didn't follow through practically, I would be concurring with them that THE GREAT SIN would be OK. 

Do you concur with them? Allow them fellowship in your church? 

This should not be so difficult for the elders on this board to figure out unless they have simply overlooked the practical nature of the church itself.

The thread would easy be explunged by the division of the decree and ecclesiology.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Listen, if I sin today, and I don't repent of that sin (whatever it is), I'm BREAKING COVENANT with God.
> 
> *Are you all that obtuse to be saying that you don't get that?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which covenant? The CoG (of which the condition is faith alone) or the CoR (of which the condition is Christ's work alone) or the CoW (which we knew a long time ago)?
> 
> Not trying to be smart alekie, but serious in my inquiry.
Click to expand...


Totally with you, great question.

Not the CoR. (I can't break that one - its electory). Not the _internal_ CoG (Can't break that one, its electory). But the external priveldges CoG as it applies to the visible church (ouch! I am a covenant breaker in the eyes of the church, and God binds and looses me from the church through thier decision to excommunicate me.). But remember, by continuing in that course, to human eyes that watch me, I may show myself as lost. They may have to excommunicate me as a result of unrepentant sin.

I already broke the CoW in Adam. 

Jeff, make it REALLY simple. When your best friends sins, falls, and does not repent, the church excommunicates him, and you see him leave the church altogether and go back to his pagan ways, what do you think of him _practically_?

How do you pray for him? Do you say, Oh Lord please sanctify my friend? Or do you pray that God would *save* him and grant him repentance?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## fredtgreco

Matt,

You must not be reading the same thread as I am. Scott has several times stated (and you have tacitly endorsed) that credobaptists are cut off from the "invisible" and "internal" covenant. He has stated that the elect will obey God's commands, and that those commands include baptizing infants. He has stated (or as much as stated) that those who never obey God's commands (read: baptizing children) are not God's elect. If they are not God's elect, they must not ever have been justified, since the justified can never totally (at any time) nor finally (in the end) fall away/commit apostasy (see WCF 17).

The discussion that I have been having is not an ecclesiastical one. It is a soteriological one - because that is the issue. I have not objected to language which says that the credobaptist is in violation of the visible covenant and is denying his children the privileges of covenantal membership that are rightfully theirs by birth (Gen 15 again, and elsewhere). But to bring the invisible/internal into a discussion about baptism IS Federal Vision. I am not saying that Scott is a FV advocate. I am saying that his confused, unhelpful and unpastorally inflammatory language is Federal Vision-ish and butresses their claims. It must be rejected.

To bring ecclesiology into this (as you are doing) is merely to confuse the issue. These are discussions for another time (and yes, we allow baptists to join since our requirements per the BCO are a credible profession of faith in Christ, not adherance to the Confession; and we practice close, not closed communion, sicne you appear to practice closed communion - only those in your church commune). The direct questions, that deserves a direct answer are:

Can a man be cut off from God in Christ because of his sin of neglecting the baptism of his children? Is a credobaptist cut off from the invisible and internal covenant with God (which must be the Covenant of Grace, per WCF)?

The Confession says clearly "no" in WCF 28.5. More than once, Scott has said "yes" and has dismissed 28.5 by saying, "they could not have been talking about baptists" (see above).

I've been waiting for a clear answer to these questions now for more than a day.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Do you allow Baptists to join your church or not? If you don't, you already are enacting a form of excommunication on them. I don't know if you practice close communion. We do. So our views on sacraments may be a little different there. But when our church becomes a particular church, only those in communion with us will take of the Supper, protecting the sacrament for the privilege of the church. In excluding others, its a form of excommunication of sorts. I am pressed to treat people in the mold of ecclesiology because I don't have privy information on how God's counsel works. We don't live there and can't make determinations there, so we have to follow biblical protocol. We hand them over to the DEVIL. (sadly)


 Well, I guess our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and the apostles couldn't join a RPCGA church in our day and age, because they're covenant-breaking credo-baptists. 





> It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
> "”Mark 1:9-11


 Believer's baptism is biblical! "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized" (John 3:23). Now, why did John the Baptist want to goto place with "much water" to perform baptism? "...And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). Again, why go down to the water to perform baptism? Sprinkling and pouring merely requires that one bring the water to the person being doused with water. Notice the following verse, "Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away... and he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). In order that that man come up out of the water, he first had to be submerged down into the water.

Finally, just read Luke 3:15-17; Luke 3:21-22; Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:4-11; John 1:29-34 if you need an added baptismal doctrinal lesson.

Yeah, one has to lift weights and freebase creatine to be a Baptist preacher... some of these baptizees aren't featherweights you know. Yes, we could take the easy way out like those hydrophobic denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians, but we're sticking with the Bible's way.

I can understand those Presbyterians who say credo-baptism and submersion is unnecessary, however, I find the ones who hold the extremes positions analagous to F.N. Lee to be rather comical.


----------



## Puritanhead

Forgive me for my blunt inquisitiveness, but I am to take it that Scott and/or Matthew agree with the position of F.N. Lee articulated in _The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren_?

Herein this thread, Scott quotes Lee at length as an authority on the matter. Earlier, I was of the mindset to remind Scott to quit while he was ahead (or behind depending on your perspective,) but since the issue has been pressed: this is a reasonable inquiry. The question stands.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Forgive me for my blunt inquisitiveness, but I am to take it that Scott and/or Matthew agree with the position of F.N. Lee articulated in _The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren_?
> 
> Herein this thread, Scott quotes Lee at length as an authority on the matter. Earlier, I was of the mindset to remind Scott to quit while he was ahead (or behind depending on your perspective,) but since the issue has been pressed: this is a reasonable inquiry. The question stands.



Answer: Yes!


----------



## Dave L

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If an Arminian dies in his Arminianism, was he elect?



It's a braver (or more foolhardy) man than I that will say John Wesley was not elect.

In error? Yes, on many points - as are we all.

But not saved at all?

PLEASE don't open that can of worms.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Answer: Yes!


 Thanks for being straightforward and not beating around the bush. 

For the record, I am not an _anabaptist_. I was never _re-baptized_. Me and my pastor did manage to get my baptism right the first time.


----------



## JohnV

I have not been following this thread post by post, but rather just dropped in from time to time to read the most recent posts only. Some of the claims disturb me, but all the same it has brought many things to mind that I have wrestled with myself. I would like to weigh in, if I may. 

When I was much younger, before my children were of school-age, we supported Christian School. But the people who made up the bulk of the membership decided to incorporate a kindergarten class, on the basis of the baptismal vow, to "having (the children) instructed". In other words, the ramification was that, if you didn't send your children to this kindergarten program that you were in violation of your baptismal vow. "Instructing them", which precedes "and having them instructed",was taken to be excluded once the children became of age to attend school. This became more explicit later, in response to our home-schooling. In other words, my family became "covenant breakers" when we decided that our children did not need to attend school until they were seven or eight years old. (This was in deference to our son, who definitely needed that extra year, maybe two, at home at that time.) We understood and appreciated, and supported, the need for Christian School, but this was taking it too far, we thought. 

We still believe this. But it has left some nagging questions. Baptism is included in the the sacraments, which, when properly administrated, is a mark of a true church. And the teaching on baptism is an integral part of the confessional ecclesiastical position. It is, in fact, an essential part of the confessional-doctrinal affirmation of the church. At what point does one judge another as outside the covenant bonds? It did not mean that we would be excommunicated, but it did mean that I was no longer eligible for office in the church. Was that right? I believed rather that the church was misunderstanding the teaching of baptism, and had made it a legalistic thing.

We are forced to conclude that one ought not to take baptism lightly. I think that, if we were honest with ourselves, that we knew this going into the discussions four or five years ago, when the PuritanBoard first started up with the intent of engaging upon this discussion: the two views were doctrinally exclusive of each other. Hence, what Scott and Matt are saying, in part, is only naturally and intrinsically part of the discussion, that the paedo view regards the credo view as a breaking of the baptismal instruction of the Word, and that the credo view regards the paedo view as a breaking of the baptismal instruction of the Word. 

But that seems to be as far as we can go with this. To be excluding the other view from the covenant, when it is clear that God has also illumined and blessed the other with the same knowledge of the salvation of Christ, is to judge where God has not judged. What I mean is that I recognize the Spirit of God in my Baptist brothers, even though I know that they have transgressed the commands of God in regard to baptism. It seems that, either God has not blessed me with the knowledge that they may have, or that God has not blessed them with the knowledge that I have. And that is how I must address the issue with my Baptist brothers. In regards to the confessional stance of the church, they have broken the regulation; but in regards to their confessional stance I have broken the regulation. 

I know these are exclusive of each other, and that such exclusion has serious ramifications. But the onus is not on the other, it is upon me. I need to understand fully that I have erred, and not presume upon my own understanding. And even if I hold the correct view, am I holding it correctly? For some reason God has us living side-by-side with fellow covenant members who are just as convinced of their view as I am of mine. That is to say that it is almost quite beside the point that their reasonings don't convince me, for that may be as much my own fault as it could be their fault: it doesn't depend on their reasoning, but on sound reasoning from Scripture. 

What I mean is that we in our time have a wrong-headed tendency to decide on an issue based upon our best educated conclusions, and circumvent the need for good and necessary consequence. We tend to equate being personally convinced by the preponderance of evidence with sure and inescapable truth, and then equste these conclusions with Scripture itself. That is clearly what I had to face in the Reconstructionist fiasco in my own church. Hence we have people propagating doctrines which they profess to be truth of God on the mere fact that no one has yet dethroned their notions. In short, pride is more of a certifier than sound reason. 

I have to agree that my church believes that the Baptist who refuses to baptize his children disregards God's promises, and disobeys the clear teaching of Scripture. Yet it is also true that I must appear so to them. It is also true that God has not refused covenant membership to them or to me, for surely God has blessed them just as he has blessed me, and that they too share in the same knowledge of salvation that God has granted me. That means that, though they have shown disobedience in the promises of faith, that God has not therefore excluded them, according the what we can see of their life and doctrine, and not just in regards to baptism alone. We ought not to exclude those whom God has not excluded, using the church to do so, for that is a misuse of the church. That is not what the church teaches, though it does teach rightly that it is disobedience to disregard or to change God's ordinances and sacraments. The Church has made this declaration, but not so as to exclude, but to include. And that is what baptism represents, a sign and seal of inclusion in the covenantal promises to those who belong to Christ, laid by Christ upon His own through His ministers of His Word.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> God specifically commanded the covenant sign to be placed on the children.
> 
> God specifically instructed His people about the importance of the covenant sign, so much so that those who did not do so broke covenant with Him.
> 
> God has never rescinded that command at any time, and in any way.
> 
> Christ himself said that the Kingdom of heaven "belongs" to little children, using the same covenant formula that God used with Abraham, also quoted in Acts 2.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]




Well, actually, God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because is baptism the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The new covenant was inaugerated in Gen 3 and consumated at Calvary.




How can the NC be inaugurated in 4,000 or so BC? In 600 BC, God says, "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Jer 31:31 (NKJV). If the days are coming in 600 BC, how can they have already come in 4,000 BC? Gen 3:15 is a promise. So are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. As it is written: 'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.' Heb 11:13 (NKJV).






> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> They are in the external covenant; the visible church. I ask you, if you had asked Abraham if Ishamel was in or out of the covenant he would have looked at you like you were mad.



He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "' 
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> I don't want to divert the thread. In answer, we are all children of Abraham. That promise hasn't changed. The category here is Abrahamic, not Mosaic.





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



Therefore only those who profess faith should receive the covenant sign.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------

