# Questions for "Reformed" credo-baptists



## AV1611 (May 6, 2007)

How do you interpret the following verses?

*Jeremiah 32:37-41* "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, *and of their children after them*: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul."

*Isaiah 59:20,21* "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor *out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed*, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."


----------



## AV1611 (May 6, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> "I will give them one heart..."
> 
> 
> "I shall be their God and they shall be my People..."
> ...



I agree mate but what about the references to their children/seed?


----------



## Gryphonette (May 6, 2007)

The "children" are those who are the true children of Abraham (per Paul in his letter to the Roman church), for only of them may it be accurately said: "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, *and of their children after them*: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

If it's all biological (or adopted) children of those in the Church, then it would be more accurate to say: "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, *and of their children after them*: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me [unless they or their children _choose_ to do so, in which case, never mind]."

"My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor *out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed* [except in those cases when it _does_ depart], saith the LORD..."

This doesn't mean the children ought not be baptized. If they are going to be raised in the faith, as disciples, then they _should_ be. But to say the children being referred to in those quotes are biological and adopted children instead of the succeeding generations of believers, is a mistake.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 6, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> The "children" are those who are the true children of Abraham (per Paul in his letter to the Roman church), for only of them may it be accurately said: "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, *and of their children after them*: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."
> 
> If it's all biological (or adopted) children of those in the Church, then it would be more accurate to say: "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, *and of their children after them*: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me [unless they or their children _choose_ to do so, in which case, never mind]."
> 
> ...





The problem is that you take the systematic doctrine of election and try to apply that to every passage about covenant succession, and Biblically it just doesn't work. What your really saying is that the only true covenant is internal and invisible, and that has nothing to do with externals. The problem with this is that these verses were meant to give assurance, and comfort. What is so comforting about telling a parent, that if their child is in the invisible covenant they shall inherit the promises, but oh, by the way you'll never really know that, so don't be confident that little johnny is actually a partaker in it. That sort of interpretation undermines the whole point of these passages.

The assumption is that those who are thee seed externally are also the seed internally. Of course this doesn't always happen, but that should be the exception, and not the rule. We should assume, like Scripture does, that those who are externally the seed also internally have it as well.

Consider what Calvin said on the matter


> Let Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the promise, - I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God do not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the symbol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed children of Adam whom the Lord has not yet called to the fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb, or the only defense that can avail him is, that the grace which was offered in the person of their parents is common to them. Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated by baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God rank them among the members of his Son.”



Or another qoute from Calvin (this one will probably really stir some of you up):


> “The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.”


----------



## VanVos (May 6, 2007)

I think hermeneutically there is something overlooked here. The New Covenant in the Old Testament was prophesied through Old Covenant lenses. In other words, This is language of accommodation to the original audience, from their perspective of redemptive history. For example the New Covenant speaks of the Israelites possessing the horse gate. Jer 31:38-40 this not be taken literally in its fulfillment because the New Covenant makes us heirs of the world Rom 4:13. Likewise the seed or the children of the covenant are the elect i.e. Gal 3:29

VanVos


----------



## Iconoclast (May 6, 2007)

*children /seed*

The promise is true, for the children to follow after the parent's when God also gives them a new heart,as the Spirit quickens them also.
Jn 6;45 says they[all the Father gives to the Son] shall all be taught of God,,,everyman that hath heard,and learned of the Father,cometh unto me.
We also believe similarly on Acts 2;39,,,,,The promise is to you [who believe] and to your children [if they too believe],,,,,,and all that are afar off [ if they also believe,] as many as the Lord our God shall call. 
I am not sure at this point in Acts if the all that are afar off,refer to the children's children,,,,the gentiles,,,, or whoever, but for sure we believe it is only those drawn to The Son. 
God does work in and through households in His mercy many times in scripture. There is a definate teaching concerning this. Nevertheless, there is Eli's two sons,and other examples where it would be incorrect to assume, or presume too much here. We can rejoice in the promise to our children,when there is evidence of the Spirit's work in the life,in regeneration and biblical conversion.


----------



## reformedman (May 6, 2007)

I see it as Gryphonette explained.
Whenever I see a verse that offers something to someone or some people, "and" their children; very simply, it is an offer. It is only an offer open to them.

For example, I can say to a particular people, the Roddingham's that live next door to me. They all live in a 3 family house and have 3 different separate families of Roddinghams in that house. I can go over there and offer them the use of my pool anytime they want.

My verbage is directed to the leader of the families and stipulate that the offer is open to them and to their children. This does not mean that the children will come, it only means that for whoever *does* come, the promise is open to them.

It is very similar to John 3:16
For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. That promise is to every that believes, the person being spoken to and their children.

I think Iconoclast was very eloquent in explaining the (if they believe) (if they too believe) parts. The text seems so simple in these points, I think it is more difficult to say that there was a special grace bestowed to these children when we don't see clear evidence of this in the bible.

And also, if it were true that there is a special grace given to the children of paedobaptists, then why do some paedobaptist children go into the world while others are saved just as Credobaptist children. There doesn't seem to be any notable difference.


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

I can't help but think that we are rushing into interpretation too quickly. These passages exist as part of a greater whole. For the sake of discussion I'll focus on the Jeremiah passage. Jeremiah was imprisoned by Zedekiah because he was prophesying that Jerusalem would fall and that Zedekiah would be captured. Additionally Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would one day be restored and commerce (the buying and selling of land) resumed throughout the land of Israel. In the midst of this we read the passage you quoted. This theme continues through chapter 33 where read further about the restoration of the land and continuance of the Davidic Kingdom. So we have two chapters that are heavy on eschatology. Within these two chapters we find Jeremiah 32:37-41.

In verse 36 Jeremiah writes, "Now therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel concerning this city of which you say, 'It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence.'" What is Jeremiah writing about? The fall of the city of Jerusalem. Jeremiah then starts writing about the people who had already been taken into captivity (Israel and the first conquest of Judah), that they will be brought back into the land. At least this is how it would have been understood by Jeremiah and those who heard his prophecy. Now don't worry, I 'm not diving into dispensationalism here but I would like to see this discussion developed and supported from scripture instead of just making assumptions. 

The hardest part (for me) in leaving dispensationalism were passages such as these. I see support here for a historical premillennial view (ala J.M. Boice). But I also see the argument that, "their children after them" (Jer. 32:39) are the elect. The interesting part of this position is that these "children" must be spiritual in nature, not physical, for physical Israel was not all believing Israel (Rom. 9:6).

Just throwing out some observations that will hopefully lead to honest questions in order to ascertain the truth.


----------



## AV1611 (May 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I can't help but think that we are rushing into interpretation too quickly.



I listened to a sermon by Fred Malone on the vital necessity of hermenutics which was quite interesting. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=11160516169


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I listened to a sermon by Fred Malone on the vital necessity of hermenutics which was quite interesting. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=11160516169



I'll have to listen to it this evening.


----------



## Mayflower (May 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'll have to listen to it this evening.



Check this out : Fred Malone - Series on God's Covenants (11 parts)
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Page7.html#malone


----------



## jenney (May 7, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> What is so comforting about telling a parent, that if their child is in the invisible covenant they shall inherit the promises, but oh, by the way you'll never really know that, so don't be confident that little johnny is actually a partaker in it.



I've never understood this. Paedos don't believe their children are guaranteed salvation, either. You can't be any more confident that your children are elect than we can.

What promises do you see covenant children having who are not elect?


----------



## JohnV (May 7, 2007)

I would agree in part, Bill, but I think that the starting post had in mind that the entire book of Jeremiah was taking place in the context that the people did not cease to be God's people after Abraham died, or after Isaac died, or even after Jacob died. Nor did the the nation cease to be God's nation after David and Solomon died. The covenant continued to the next generation as a people, a chosen people. The unfaithfulness of the generation of king Zedekiah did not end the covenant, which we see in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, of Daniel, or Esther. God always maintained a remnant of His people, even of those whose only tie to the generation of the faithful, to Abraham or Jacob, was their lineage. He did not forget His covenant for the sake of His promises to David also. From generation to generation He kept the same covenant that He had made with the ones He called righteous fathers. 

Then in 1 Peter 2 we who are of the new covenant are called a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. The same context of covenant is carried on. 

This context of covenant is the overarching context of Jeremiah. The reasons for the pronouncements for and against the people is due to the covenant identification that they are rooted into. This is how I understand covenant; this is how I understand that we call Reformed theology "Covenant theology", not because it is a particular slant that can be put onto the Bible, but because the whole framework of both the old and the new testaments takes place in this setting, and cannot be separated from it. 

These particular texts that have been quoted refer directly this. It is this direct reference that is being asked about, it seems to me.


----------



## Archlute (May 7, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I listened to a sermon by Fred Malone on the vital necessity of hermenutics which was quite interesting. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=11160516169



Too bad that Malone picked the wrong hermeneutic


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

John - that is exactly what I wanted to discuss. I didn't want to assume the intent of the OP. 

I concur with your assessment of 1 Peter 2. God's chosen people are His elect. But that is not what Jeremiah or his audience would have understood. They would have understood this prophecy as pertaining to them. This is also why I mentioned the historic premillennial view. I haven't settled on my view of the millennial kingdom, but I am sympathetic to Boice and Ladd.


----------



## JohnV (May 7, 2007)

Bill:

I like Ladd too. I especially liked "Shane". Oh, wait a minute, that was Alan Ladd. I think we're talking about different Ladds heres.

I don't get you with what you say about God's chosen people. Why would Jeremiah's people have understood it differently? What I was referring to was what "covenant" meant to the people at Jeremiah's time and Peter's time: it meant the same thing. Yes, I agree that there was a difference in that there was no longer a physical barrier between Jew and Gentile, but the idea of covenant remained exactly the same. 

God did not forget Adam after the Fall, but continued to deal with him afterward, promising the Redeemer. God's promises did not die with Jacob or Joseph, nor with the immediate generation after, because it carried on: Jacob's grandchildren and great grandchildren were included in the promises by right. God did not just establish a covenant with Abraham, but with his seed after him. Ishmael and Esau were also still in that covenant sphere. It did not die out after all those years of neglect during Jeremiah's years, nor after the temple was burned, nor even after the book of the law was discarded. The covenant carried on. 

This covenant, this very same meaning of covenant, is what Peter refers to when he applies it to the new covenant people. It carries on to the next generation, and does not die out when the faithful generation dies off. The point is, it does not depend upon man to propagate and perpetuate it. And God specifically said in both the old and the new testaments that children are included in the covenant. If unbelievers who come to faith by the preaching of the Word are incorporated into the covenant, why not children through the preaching of the Word, especially if they are brought up in the house of the Lord from their earliest years?


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Bill:
> 
> I like Ladd too. I especially liked "Shane". Oh, wait a minute, that was Alan Ladd. I think we're talking about different Ladds heres.
> 
> ...



John - okay...let's move beyond the typical credo vs. paedo debate. Let me ask this: is it possible that the Jews of Jeremiah's time could have viewed the prophecies of chapters 32 & 33 as only including Israel? Certainly that is what the Pharisees and the Zealots believed. Having the advantage of the whole counsel of God it is easier for us to make that connection. A study of Romans 11 clears up any confusion that I may have. But does this negate any specific promises for Israel? I suppose if one is A-Mil or Post-mil they would answer "yes" to that question. But what about the historic pre-mil position? Wouldn't they view Israel as having some part in a literal millennium?


----------



## JohnV (May 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> John - okay...let's move beyond the typical credo vs. paedo debate. Let me ask this: is it possible that the Jews of Jeremiah's time could have viewed the prophecies of chapters 32 & 33 as only including Israel? Certainly that is what the Pharisees and the Zealots believed. Having the advantage of the whole counsel of God it is easier for us to make that connection. A study of Romans 11 clears up any confusion that I may have. But does this negate any specific promises for Israel? I suppose if one is A-Mil or Post-mil they would answer "yes" to that question. But what about the historic pre-mil position? Wouldn't they view Israel as having some part in a literal millennium?



Yes, I suppose you may ask that. But it makes no difference to what I was saying. 

I really don't think that Jeremiah's audience had their eschatology divided into three neat millennial views like we do today. And we also have Israel within that millennial age, whatever millennial view we might have. 

What I was trying to say was the God made a covenant with various men in the OT era. None of those covenants ended with the death of the people with whom God made them. All the covenants carried on, not only to the eternal reward of all those with whom God made the covenants, but to the children, the direct descendants, of these men. 

This same idea of covenant is carried on in the new covenant: it does not die out with the death of an elect person. It is not so much that it is propagated through having children, but that having children is included in the covenant promises just like the old covenant. It is not a "special grace" just for the children of the believers; it is a part of the definition of covenant as defined by the institution of it by God. It is that it does not die out with the death of the elect. 

The people of Jeremiah's time would have understood covenant in those terms, even though their eschatology may have been more temporally minded than what God intended in His prophecies through Jeremiah. Peter uses the very same language and terms for the new covenant. And that's why we believe that the same covenantal thrust goes through the entire Bible, and why we believe it ought to be understood in terms of covenant.


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

> I really don't think that Jeremiah's audience had their eschatology divided into three neat millennial views like we do today.



Granted. I am writing this as a New Testament saint looking backwards. I'm just wondering what the Jews of Jeremiahs time were thinking. They were expecting Messiah to establish His eternal kingdom on earth. I'm not sure of their concept of heaven. But again, I digress.



> What I was trying to say was the God made a covenant with various men in the OT era. None of those covenants ended with the death of the people with whom God made them. All the covenants carried on, not only to the eternal reward of all those with whom God made the covenants, but to the children, the direct descendants, of these men.



Yes, God did make covenants with men. I understand the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), the Davidic Covenant, the New Covenant etc. The Noahic Covenant is with us today. God has not caused a world-wide flood and the sign of the rainbow is ever present after a rainstorm. The Davidic Covenant was the promise of the Messiah. This has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled. The New Covenant is a perpetual covenant, an everlasting covenant that is entered into by faith in the Son of God. The Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled spiritually in the elect, it is also perpetual. I do have questions about the Mosaic Covenant. Certainly we would agree that the sacrificial system has ended, being fulfilled in Christ(Hebrews 8). The Ten Commandments are considered a covenant (Exo. 34) and are still valid today. And while I do not want to turn this into a New vs. Old debate, I do consider the New Covenant to be a brand-new covenant, not a refreshed or renewed covenant. In that sense I can say that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled.

John - my point is that I do agree with a covenantal view of scripture. The debate would be as to what all these covenants mean. Obviously the credo vs. paedo debate is proof of that reality. Another proof are the differing eschatological positions. I entered this discussion because I am still seeking answers in those areas. I don't have my position buttoned down or water proof. That is why this discussion is profitable for me.


----------



## JohnV (May 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> John - my point is that I do agree with a covenantal view of scripture. The debate would be as to what all these covenants mean. Obviously the credo vs. paedo debate is proof of that reality. Another proof are the differing eschatological positions. I entered this discussion because I am still seeking answers in those areas. I don't have my position buttoned down or water proof. That is why this discussion is profitable for me.



You see, that's the difference right there. My view has been all wet for some time now.  

Use velcro. It's easier on you when you find you've made a mistake. Not "if", but "when". And be ready to get wet a lot more. That's why I won't ever claim to be a presuppositionalist, at least not unless I'm blaming myself for my mistakes.


----------

