# Question on Paedobaptism



## JesusIsLord

My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:

If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?

I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?


----------



## hammondjones

Each time we see a baptism, I remind my children they have also been baptized, that the Lord has a claim on them, that they were born into the church, that this is their birthright BUT also that they must to believe, because, born in sin, they have dirty hearts.

So, if the question is "What is the benefit of the child being part of the visible church?", I'll give a Romans 3:2 answer: "Much in every way."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Do your children appreciate growing up with a "last name?" Little Billy or Suzy acquire their own sense of name-identity quite early; but eventually they also apprehend the "family" name.

Do they understand all that it means? No, not right away; but they grow in their understanding. Furthermore, they may at first only appreciate it most_ superficially,_ rather than in a deep and fully appropriate manner. Indeed, it can be cliché for a child to have to pass through and beyond his teens, perhaps go off to college, to really appreciate what his last name means.

Some kids eventually repudiate (one way or another) their named-connection because of a negative attitude.

*************************
What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude." 

These two notions represent or illustrate two approaches to the matter of identification through baptism. You might argue that the second way is "hardly any different" practically from the first; parents in both conceptions do the same things, etc.

Or, maybe there is some difference, to have a name outwardly and externally and objectively before I even know it as a child, and to grow into a proper appreciation for it; and into the duties and responsibilities that believing that name has value.

Or, the other side might argue that everyone should make a vow to take a family name, and not really be of a certain clan until then. After all, some children grow up to be a scandal to their parents, so maybe better off not labeling them until they label themselves?

History has some of both, I guess. Some tribes of the earth make entrance into adulthood the moment when ALL recognition is given. Some tribes regard belonging as beginning in birth, and grant privilege through testing or milestones.

*************************
Bottom line: despite similarities between RB and RP in theology and practice, there are different starting points, and different assumptions driving us. We're better off acknowledging the differences, instead of putting all the emphasis on how the "overlap" seems (to some) to make the opposite habits worthless.

Finally, our decision on what to do isn't driven by a practical evaluation.

Rather, God said it; that settles it.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Von

Contra_Mundum said:


> Finally, our decision on what to do isn't driven by a practical evaluation.
> 
> Rather, God said it; that settles it.


Even though I differ from Rev Buchanan on the baptism-issue, I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. There are so many similar issues that deserve the same answer.


----------



## Scott Bushey

JesusIsLord said:


> then what benefit is baptism for the child?



It unites them to the covenant-some internally, others externally. The Apostle tells us that our children are 'holy' and since we understand the command to place the sign, we consider the child set-apart for this holiness. Whether they are rebellious to that sign, is irrelevant. God commands and hence, we do.


----------



## Romans922

“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” - Rom. 3:1-2
‭

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99

JesusIsLord said:


> My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:
> 
> If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?
> 
> I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?



Like has been said, the main issue will be whether God said to do it. I think that finer details such as this will be answered based on whom you believe should be baptized.

From a paedo standpoint, you are both treating your children as church members, doing things for them you'd never do for an unrepentant unbeliever, so you are both discipling your children like was done in Deuteronomy 6, and as Paul says in Ephesians, "Children obey your parents in the Lord." I can't imagine that the Israelite parents ever thought they were doing anything else than discipling. I'm not sure what else Abraham was doing either when God said of him, "He will command his children after him."

By baptism, you are calling them a member of the church, and by discipling, you are treating them consistently. 

I think one great and practical key difference though is that a paedobaptist sees a world of promises for the children of believers in the Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant, instead of believing that they may be blessed by incident of being in a believer's home, but nothing really being allotted or promised to them. The fact that the NC promises the same benefits for the children as the adults is incredible incentive to preach the Gospel to them, pray for them, and be faithful in all means to disciple them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

I always appreciate Bruce's contributions to these baptism threads. I will contribute an analogy as well. Imagine two nearly identical scenarios: in both of them an earnest young man proposes marriage to the love of his life. In one scenario, the young man proposes with a ring in hand that he offers to her. In the other scenario, he proposes without a ring. Now, exceedingly practically-minded young ladies might not mind at all being proposed to without a ring. They might think that it makes no difference at all. However, ask most ladies on this board whether it makes a difference, and you will get one predominating answer, I am thinking: it makes a great deal of difference! Why? Because, having purchased a ring, the young man is "putting his money where his mouth is." 

So, to extend the analogy to the baptism question, God has promised to work covenantally through the family. All acknowledge that this is no guarantee of salvation: faith is required on the part of the young'un. However, when God promises that all those who come to faith in Jesus Christ will be saved, how does God "put his money where his mouth is?" Presbyterians believe that he does so in baptism. The promise is sure, God means what he says, and he has given us a sign to prove it (we need the signs because our own faith is weak). 

However mistaken the FV has been on many things, one phrase that the FV either originated or popularized that I really like is "grabbing people by their baptisms." When young folk stray from the straight and narrow path, we can remind them that God made a promise to them, and that the parents responded in faith as well. They were affianced to Jesus Christ in baptism. Breaking that relationship is possible, but carries enormous negative baggage.


----------



## beloved7

As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?

Not a knock on Presbyterians, got nothing but love for you all.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

beloved7 said:


> As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. *Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation* as well?


With all due respect, you should ask Abraham this question. And he would reply, "God said it; that settles it." If you apprehend the scriptural reasoning of a Presbyterian, they you are aware that we regard these as equivalent signs, suited to their respective eras (whether Promise or Fulfillment).

God formally put the children of believers into the externally administered sphere of his covenant in Gen.17 (paraphrasing Warfield); he has nowhere in Scripture put them out; therefore they remain in, and are due the sign which was given even to them.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## beloved7

Contra_Mundum said:


> With all due respect, you should ask Abraham this question. And he would reply, "God said it; that settles it." If you apprehend the scriptural reasoning of a Presbyterian, they you are aware that we regard these as equivalent signs, suited to their respective eras (whether Promise or Fulfillment).
> 
> God formally put the children of believers into the externally administered sphere of his covenant in Gen.17 (paraphrasing Warfield); he has nowhere in Scripture put them out; therefore they remain in, and are due the sign which was given even to them.



I'm not going to argue with you over this. But you didn' answer the question, at all. That was quite the stretch.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

beloved7 said:


> I'm not going to argue with you over this. But you didn' answer the question, at all. That was quite the stretch.


Your quote: "I understand the scriptural reasoning," but... I guess not?

Maybe you want in a soundbite? We don't wait because God said "Don't wait." No stretch.


----------



## beloved7

I think it is best if I bite my tounge.


----------



## Cymro

Dr A.W.Miller wrote, ‘that children are not baptised in order that they may be sons and heirs of God, but because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism’. Children are as much in covenant as their parents are. Baptism is a recognition of the fact that presumably the child is already in the covenant of grace. A child could be cleansed by the same purifying grace which cleanses the pollution of an adults sin.
Really there must be a consistency between the baptism of adults and that of children. Put it like this, all baptism is inevitably administered not of knowledge but of presumption. Warfield would say, that” membership in the visible church is founded on a presumptive membership in the invisible church, until its subjects by an act incompatible therewith, prove the contrary.” So that could encompass a child or a professing adult. Whilst Hodge would write, “All membership in the church, consequently all baptism as a seal of that membership, was on the basis of a presumption of election, not on the presumption of regeneration.” A profession is not more a solid basis to build upon than the divine promise. Again Warfield would state, “that if we baptise on the basis of presumption, the whole principle is yielded.”
Furthermore, the presumption of election is not founded on the children’s baptism, but their baptism is founded on the presumption in the divine promise that they belonged to the body of Christ- to the elect. To my mind, when formerly a Baptist, I hoped that my children would be saved because of my parental love for them. Now I have the sign and seal of the promise of the God who cannot lie, to rest in and plead that He fulfill it to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

beloved7 said:


> I think it is best if I bite my tounge.



I believe you are correct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers

JesusIsLord said:


> My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:
> 
> If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?
> 
> I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?



Baptism confers a new status upon the child as a member of the covenant community of God. This status is so remarkable that it would be a shame to deny the child of it - especially since he or she is entitled to it.


----------



## Flowers

beloved7 said:


> As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?
> 
> Not a knock on Presbyterians, got nothing but love for you all.



It is more than a symbol. Baptism is actually effective. It is a sign and *a* *seal*. And, as I said above, it confers new status.


----------



## JTB.SDG

If God said to do it, there is benefit in it, even if we, with our puny minds, can't comprehend fully what that benefit is or how it works. But it's certain, "In keeping God's Word, there is great reward." In fact, you could extend the question past infant baptism and just focus on baptism in general. Why baptize at all? What's the benefit of baptizing, whether infants or adults? Why the sacraments? Can't we just listen to the Word of God and believe? Why do we do it? Because God said to do it. And we do well to obey what God says.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## earl40

beloved7 said:


> Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?



Many people are terrified to get up in front of a ton of people and speak. To require such is cruel and ought not to be asked of them.


----------



## beloved7

JTB.SDG said:


> If God said to do it, there is benefit in it, even if we, with our puny minds, can't comprehend fully what that benefit is or how it works. But it's certain, "In keeping God's Word, there is great reward." In fact, you could extend the question past infant baptism and just focus on baptism in general. Why baptize at all? What's the benefit of baptizing, whether infants or adults? Why the sacraments? Can't we just listen to the Word of God and believe? Why do we do it? Because God said to do it. And we do well to obey what God says.





earl40 said:


> Many people are terrified to get up in front of a ton of people and speak. To require such is cruel and ought not to be asked of them.


Jesus commands us to tell people our testimony in Mark 5:19 (you know, the whole God said it, that settles it thing). Yes, it's frightening. I was very anxious but pulled through it. The Holy Spirit helped me (John 16:13). It's an act of obedience to our Lord.

If what you said were true one could argue that the great commssion is cruel, could they not? If someone is going to engage in spiritual warfare for the rest of their earthly lives, public speaking for a couple minutes is a drop in the bucket.


----------



## earl40

beloved7 said:


> Jesus commands us to tell people our testimony in Mark 5:19 (you know, the whole God said it, that settles it thing). Yes, it's frightening. I was very anxious but pulled through it. The Holy Spirit helped me (John 16:13). It's an act of obedience to our Lord.
> 
> If what you said were true one could argue that the great commssion is cruel, could they not? If someone is going to engage in spiritual warfare for the rest of their earthly lives, public speaking for a couple minutes is a drop in the bucket.



https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-great-commission-only-to-apostles.58678/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## beloved7

earl40 said:


> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-great-commission-only-to-apostles.58678/


Thank you for the link to this. It's an interesting topic. Much of it lies with how one views polity and the priesthood of all believers. When Jesus cast out demons and told the man to go and tell everyone what God did for him, He wasn't speaking to an apostle. Nor was He commanding the man to become a teacher. It was pretty straight forward that the man was to share his testimony. There are others here who are more well educated and can articulate their posts much better than I. Though, ultimatly, mental theological gymnastics are exactly that, mental gymnastics.


----------



## greenbaggins

Flowers said:


> Baptism confers a new status upon the child as a member of the covenant community of God. This status is so remarkable that it would be a shame to deny the child of it - especially since he or she is entitled to it.



It is actually better to say that the status of a child as a member of the covenant community is theirs by right of birth into a covenant family. Baptism is the solemn ceremony marking that inclusion. Children are already part of the covenant community. They do not become so by virtue of baptism.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Flowers

greenbaggins said:


> It is actually better to say that the status of a child as a member of the covenant community is theirs by right of birth into a covenant family. Baptism is the solemn ceremony marking that inclusion. Children are already part of the covenant community. They do not become so by virtue of baptism.



In our church someone cannot become a member unless they've been baptized. I do think that visible church membership is a new status in the eyes of God.


----------



## greenbaggins

Billy, your statement is not nuanced enough. Adults may not become members except by profession of faith, which would also require baptism. Children of believers are members of the church by virtue of being born into a covenant family of which one or both parents are members of the church. See the following passages in the PCA BCO: 6-1 "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant." BCO 56-4 g-h, indicate the word "solemnly" is very important, because of the section h, which says "That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized." Section j of the same section repeats it again that they are made members of the church "By virtue of being children of believing parents." This is in accord with 1 Corinthians 7:14, which describes the children of even one believing parent as "holy," set apart from the world by virtue of their birth, not because of their baptism. Your view is simply incorrect, and out of accord with the BCO, and with scripture. 

WCF 28.1 has again that all-important qualifying word "solemn." It is a solemn reception. It does not confer a membership that was not already possessed. WLC 166 is also quite clear on this point. With respect to adults, they have to profess faith. However, it says of children that "infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized."

They are already part of the covenant community. Baptism marks the solemn confirmation of that status that they already have.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers

greenbaggins said:


> Billy, your statement is not nuanced enough. Adults may not become members except by profession of faith, which would also require baptism. Children of believers are members of the church by virtue of being born into a covenant family of which one or both parents are members of the church. See the following passages in the PCA BCO: 6-1 "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant." BCO 56-4 g-h, indicate the word "solemnly" is very important, because of the section h, which says "That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized." Section j of the same section repeats it again that they are made members of the church "By virtue of being children of believing parents." This is in accord with 1 Corinthians 7:14, which describes the children of even one believing parent as "holy," set apart from the world by virtue of their birth, not because of their baptism. Your view is simply incorrect, and out of accord with the BCO, and with scripture.
> 
> WCF 28.1 has again that all-important qualifying word "solemn." It is a solemn reception. It does not confer a membership that was not already possessed. WLC 166 is also quite clear on this point. With respect to adults, they have to profess faith. However, it says of children that "infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized."
> 
> They are already part of the covenant community. Baptism marks the solemn confirmation of that status that they already have.



I appreciate this but this does present some practical issues. There is a family in our church who are members and who have chosen *not* to bring their children for baptism. This is because they are credo-baptists. If this family were in your church, would you not insist upon baptism before you admitted these children to the Lord's Supper? But why insist upon baptism if they're already members of the church? You must admit that baptism makes a difference here in conferring a new status.


----------



## greenbaggins

Flowers said:


> I appreciate this but this does present some practical issues. There is a family in our church who are members and who have chosen *not* to bring their children for baptism. This is because they are credo-baptists. If this family were in your church, would you not insist upon baptism before you admitted these children to the Lord's Supper? But why insist upon baptism if they're already members of the church? You must admit that baptism makes a difference here in conferring a new status.



Firstly, it is more than a little disturbing to me that I present to you biblical, confessional, and BCO arguments, to which you respond with no answer to those things, but instead present a practical situation that you think tears a huge whole through the arguments I presented. Practical situations NEVER determine our theology. That is not a confessional viewpoint. 

Secondly, even the case you cite proves no such thing as you describe. Paedo-baptists insist upon paedo-baptism because _we believe the Scripture requires it_, not because it confers a new status of membership that the child did not have previously. Your case doesn't even prove your point. The only "status" baptism confers is "baptized status." It does not confer membership in the visible church. It _marks_ membership in the visible church. 

Thirdly, if I had a family wanting to join, who were credo-baptists (and had children who were not baptized), I would patiently, and over the course of a long time, seek to convince them of the paedo-baptist position before admission into membership. If they would not be convinced after my best and most prayer-filled efforts, I would seek to place them in a Reformed Baptist congregation rather than introduce them into a church situation where they would be, in the eyes of the church, sinning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers

greenbaggins said:


> Firstly, it is more than a little disturbing to me that I present to you biblical, confessional, and BCO arguments, to which you respond with no answer to those things, but instead present a practical situation that you think tears a huge whole through the arguments I presented. Practical situations NEVER determine our theology. That is not a confessional viewpoint.



I'm sorry that you're more than a little disturbed. I love the confession and the BCO, but I haven't invited them into my heart as my Lord and Savior. I do agree with the confessions on this issue and so I appreciate what they're saying. I just think that _more_ can be said.



> Secondly, even the case you cite proves no such thing as you describe. Paedo-baptists insist upon paedo-baptism because _we believe the Scripture requires it_, not because it confers a new status of membership that the child did not have previously. Your case doesn't even prove your point. The only "status" baptism confers is "baptized status." It does not confer membership in the visible church. It _marks_ membership in the visible church.



Could there be a church member who is unbaptized?



> Thirdly, if I had a family wanting to join, who were credo-baptists (and had children who were not baptized), I would patiently, and over the course of a long time, seek to convince them of the paedo-baptist position before admission into membership. If they would not be convinced after my best and most prayer-filled efforts, I would seek to place them in a Reformed Baptist congregation rather than introduce them into a church situation where they would be, in the eyes of the church, sinning.



That you think that this is an actionable, disciplinary issue is a little alarming to me. Though I'm a paedo-baptist and proud to be, our church has no issue being in fellowship with brothers who are credo-baptists. Of course we would not admit them to office unless they changed their view. But if someone legitimately holds the credo-baptist view I don't see it as a disciplinary issue.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Flowers said:


> our church has no issue being in fellowship with brothers who are credo-baptists.



I don't believe any of us Presbyterians would argue against 'fellowship' w/ our dear brethren in the credo fold. However, I am getting the feeling that what u are saying here means that they are allowed into the actual membership of the church. Is that correct? Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## earl40

Scott Bushey said:


> However, I am getting the feeling that what u are saying here means that they are allowed into the actual membership of the church. Is that correct? Am I understanding you correctly?



Tell me this is not uncommon in PCA churches?


----------



## Scott Bushey

earl40 said:


> Tell me this is not uncommon in PCA churches?



Earl,
Did u mean to say, 'common'?


----------



## earl40

Scott Bushey said:


> Earl,
> Did u mean to say, 'common'?



Sometimes using a double negative in a sentence is a bad thing. 

What I am saying it is very very common for credos to be members of PCA churches here in Central Florida. Of course this is a personal observation which I am rather confident of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> Dr A.W.Miller wrote, ‘that children are not baptised in order that they may be sons and heirs of God, but because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism’. Children are as much in covenant as their parents are. Baptism is a recognition of the fact that presumably the child is already in the covenant of grace. A child could be cleansed by the same purifying grace which cleanses the pollution of an adults sin.
> Really there must be a consistency between the baptism of adults and that of children. Put it like this, all baptism is inevitably administered not of knowledge but of presumption. Warfield would say, that” membership in the visible church is founded on a presumptive membership in the invisible church, until its subjects by an act incompatible therewith, prove the contrary.” So that could encompass a child or a professing adult. Whilst Hodge would write, “All membership in the church, consequently all baptism as a seal of that membership, was on the basis of a presumption of election, not on the presumption of regeneration.” A profession is not more a solid basis to build upon than the divine promise. Again Warfield would state, “that if we baptise on the basis of presumption, the whole principle is yielded.”
> Furthermore, the presumption of election is not founded on the children’s baptism, but their baptism is founded on the presumption in the divine promise that they belonged to the body of Christ- to the elect. To my mind, when formerly a Baptist, I hoped that my children would be saved because of my parental love for them. Now I have the sign and seal of the promise of the God who cannot lie, to rest in and plead that He fulfill it to them.


Think that a lot of the reasoning behind water baptism is determined by just who is part of the new Covenant, and so I would see it as including just those whose sins have been forgiven, received Jesus, and are now indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit. But also do see others will and do understand this issue in a different fashion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> and so I would see it as including just those whose sins have been forgiven, received Jesus, and are now indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit.



But, I believe you fail to see the inconsistency in the practice as a credo. How do you know the person u are placing the sign upon is actually one of the elect????

A confession is not adequate. History would bear witness to this fact.


----------



## Scott Bushey

earl40 said:


> Of course this is a personal observation which I am rather confident of.



I concur. I believe the choice is left up to particular PCA churches-my former PCA church did just that. I don't know about my present congregation. I will check the book of church order later.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> But, I believe you fail to see the inconsistency in the practice as a credo. How do you know the person u are placing the sign upon is actually one of the elect????


That argument is a two edged sword. Paedobaptists baptise children of believers. How do you know the child you are baptising is the child of a *believer*?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen L Smith said:


> That argument is a two edged sword. Paedobaptists baptise children of believers. How do you know the child you are baptising is the child of a *believer*?



We don’t know flawlessly- that’s the point, and we still place the sign, because it’s commanded and has never been based on any subjective rationale, outside of a confession.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

The promise is for the professing believer and his/her children. It's a conditional promise, we must continue in Christ's love (John 15) to the end. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beezer

earl40 said:


> What I am saying it is very very common for credos to be members of PCA churches here in Central Florida. Of course this is a personal observation which I am rather confident of.



I agree. It is very common among PCA churches near me in Central Virginia as well. I had a PCA TE tell me the PCA's growth as a denomination was owed to the Baptists that have steadily joined over the years.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> But, I believe you fail to see the inconsistency in the practice as a credo. How do you know the person u are placing the sign upon is actually one of the elect????
> 
> A confession is not adequate. History would bear witness to this fact.


The person receiving the rite has to make a credible profession of having received Jesus through faith, as evidenced by how they understand the process of salvation, who Jesus really is, and evidence by some evidence of having to some degree a changed life now in Christ.
I would just apply the same principles in the scripture of how one can know that we are now saved and secured in and by the Trinity Themselves.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> The promise is for the professing believer and his/her children. It's a conditional promise, we must continue in Christ's love (John 15) to the end.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is the defining question, just who is included in the NC and able to now receive the water baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If you could, please show me a verse abrogating placing the sign on infants anywhere in scripture.

matt 19:14
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> If you could, please show me a verse abrogating placing the sign on infants anywhere in scripture.
> 
> matt 19:14
> 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


The mark of one being defined as now being under and in the NC is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise, as the Water Baptism is an outward affirmation of that already accomplished internal working by the Spirit in us.


----------



## Gforce9

I'm willing to pay up to $150 for a pair of Regeneration Goggles if anyone is selling......

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The mark of one being defined as now being under and in the NC is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise, as the Water Baptism is an outward affirmation of that already accomplished internal working by the Spirit in us.



You do understand that all believers, never mind the timeframe, all had to have the 'Holy Spirit of Promise', else how would they not immediately apostatize the faith?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Gforce9 said:


> I'm willing to pay up to $150 for a pair of Regeneration Goggles if anyone is selling......


I'll see your $150, and raise $100.
Call.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Cymro

How do you know David, that the mark you are confident in, ie, the indwelling of the Spirit in another person, and the attesting of it by baptism, is correctly discernible by you and a true confession by that person? I suggest you can only accept it by presuming that it is so. The other disciples took the confession of Judas as bona fide and were wrong: Demas hoodwinked even the great Apostle Paul until he went back into the world:the Hebrews who forsook the assembling of themselves together were accounted Christians until they rejected the means of grace : the Spirit came upon Saul and he prophesied but he revealed that the root of the matter was not in him. As you would accept by presumption a candidate for baptism on his confession, the paedobaptist would exercise faith in the covenant promise of God that He would be God to his children. The children are members of the church before baptism, and by that sign and seal of the promise, the parents presume they are Christian until they sometimes prove otherwise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I'll see your $150, and raise $100.
> Call.



Well, I can see if I'm ever to lay hold of a pair of the ever-elusive spectacles, I'm going to have to play hardball!

If anyone has a pair of New in Box goggles, a pair that has never gazed upon the soul of man, I'm willing to go to $275....final offer

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

Steve, you ask how do you know the child is a child of a believer? Well the same way as you know the confession of and adult confessor is true! See my post above.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Gforce9 said:


> Well, I can see if I'm ever to lay hold of a pair of the ever-elusive spectacles, I'm going to have to play hardball!
> 
> If anyone has a pair of New in Box goggles, a pair that has never gazed upon the soul of man, I'm willing to go to $275....final offer


Sold:

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 4


----------



## Cymro

Partricks re-generation goggles are based upon a previous generation goggles round about Genesis 12, 15, 17! Guaranteed not to give optical illusions, but twenty twenty perspicacity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> How do you know David, that the mark you are confident in, ie, the indwelling of the Spirit in another person, and the attesting of it by baptism, is correctly discernible by you and a true confession by that person? I suggest you can only accept it by presuming that it is so. The other disciples took the confession of Judas as bona fide and were wrong: Demas hoodwinked even the great Apostle Paul until he went back into the world:the Hebrews who forsook the assembling of themselves together were accounted Christians until they rejected the means of grace : the Spirit came upon Saul and he prophesied but he revealed that the root of the matter was not in him. As you would accept by presumption a candidate for baptism on his confession, the paedobaptist would exercise faith in the covenant promise of God that He would be God to his children. The children are members of the church before baptism, and by that sign and seal of the promise, the parents presume they are Christian until they sometimes prove otherwise.


Water Baptism in the NC though was the outward sign/symbol of the work already that had been accomplished by the Holy Spirit to have saved the sinner, as a testimony to the truth of now having new life in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NC though was the outward sign/symbol of the work already that had been accomplished by the Holy Spirit to have saved the sinner, as a testimony to the truth of now having new life in Jesus Christ.



That's exactly what Presbyterians don't believe Scripture teaches, David; our position is that baptism doesn't mean what Baptists believe it means. That's what I came to see as a Baptist. 

You need to start using Scripture fo back up your statements. If you search through old threads you'll see how the Scriptures have been discussed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NC though was the outward sign/symbol of the work already that had been accomplished by the Holy Spirit to have saved the sinner, as a testimony to the truth of now having new life in Jesus Christ.



I think what you're missing in the previous posts, David, is that no one can know for sure what the Spirit has wrought.....no one. One can only "best guess", which neither inerrant nor infallible. When you write that you only baptize those in whom the Spirit works, the question immediately comes, how do you know? The answer is that you don't know, nor does any human being.....


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NC though was the outward sign/symbol of the work already that had been accomplished by the Holy Spirit to have saved the sinner, as a testimony to the truth of now having new life in Jesus Christ.



You still fail to answer the question:
"How do you know David, that the mark you are confident in, ie, the indwelling of the Spirit in another person, and the attesting of it by baptism, is correctly discernible by you and a true confession by that person?"


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gforce9 said:


> I think what you're missing in the previous posts, David, is that no one can know for sure what the Spirit has wrought.....no one. One can only "best guess", which neither inerrant nor infallible. When you write that you only baptize those in whom the Spirit works, the question immediately comes, how do you know? The answer is that you don't know, nor does any human being.....



Which is nothing more than _presumption_. I have made mention, as well as Jeff (above), what do u do with Demas, Ananias and his wife, Judas and Simon Magus?


----------



## Cymro

David, David, was not Judas baptised? Was not Demas ? Were not the Hebrews? Was not Saul circumcised? Yet they received the outward symbol, which did not prove they had the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> That's exactly what Presbyterians don't believe Scripture teaches, David; our position is that baptism doesn't mean what Baptists believe it means. That's what I came to see as a Baptist.
> 
> You need to start using Scripture fo back up your statements. If you search through old threads you'll see how the Scriptures have been discussed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Apostle Paul makes it clear to us in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, that only those who heard and believed in Jesus were the ones to receive the promised Holy Spirit, and to be indwelt and sealed by Him unto salvation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> I think what you're missing in the previous posts, David, is that no one can know for sure what the Spirit has wrought.....no one. One can only "best guess", which neither inerrant nor infallible. When you write that you only baptize those in whom the Spirit works, the question immediately comes, how do you know? The answer is that you don't know, nor does any human being.....


True, but the basic definition of one being found in the NC would be to be now in Christ, and having received the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit Himself places us into Christ and baptized us into body of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> David, David, was not Judas baptised? Was not Demas ? Were not the Hebrews? Was not Saul circumcised? Yet they received the outward symbol, which did not prove they had the Holy Spirit.


There were no doubt some not saved who have been immersed in the water, but my understanding of biblical truth would still be that the ones to get dunked are the ones already saved and sealed into Jesus by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> There were no doubt some not saved who have been immersed in the water



So u agree that u can't know, flawlessly?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So u agree that u can't know, flawlessly?


We all would agree with that, but the basic question still remains as to who would qualify for being water baptized, and why are they?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> The Apostle Paul makes it clear to us in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, that only those who heard and believed in Jesus were the ones to receive the promised Holy Spirit, and to be indwelt and sealed by Him unto salvation.



Can you explain how you’re seeing these verses relate to paedobaptism? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> We all would agree with that, but the basic question still remains as to who would qualify for being water baptized, and why are they?



David,
The disagreement in this section of the thread *is not* the usual Baptist-Reformed one, per se. It is your seeming insistence that one can know _*infallibly and inerrantly*_ who is a believer and/or who can know _*infallibly and inerrantly*_ the work of the Spirit *and this being the basis for baptism*. This is not the Baptist nor Reformed position. The Baptist or Reformed (for adults) baptism is based on a *"credible profession". *A credible profession for a Baptist or for the Reformed is the same.....it is a "good guess" at best. The "credible profession" *and not infallible knowledge* is the basis for baptism......

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> The disagreement in this section of the thread *is not* the usual Baptist-Reformed one, per se. It is your seeming insistence that one can know _*infallibly and inerrantly*_ who is a believer and/or who can know _*infallibly and inerrantly*_ the work of the Spirit *and this being the basis for baptism*. This is not the Baptist nor Reformed position. The Baptist or Reformed (for adults) baptism is based on a *"credible profession". *A credible profession for a Baptist or for the Reformed is the same.....it is a "good guess" at best. The "credible profession" *and not infallible knowledge* is the basis for baptism......


I would agree with that, as all that we can do would be to base the water baptism upon the confession of the party having received Jesus through faith, and are thus now been born from above. Being now a saved person qualifies them to be seen under the NC, and now a suitable person to be water baptized.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Can you explain how you’re seeing these verses relate to paedobaptism?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The person to be water baptized needs to be now born again, and to be now saved in Christ, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
God can still apply saving grace towards any infant that he so chooses, but that would be the exception to the rule, as normal fashion would be to baptize believers in Jesus.
the Baptism done on the person by the Holy Spirit in the conversion time places them into the Body of Christ, and the water baptism is the sign of now being part of the local assembly.
This would be my understanding of this discussion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> and are thus now been born from above.



You're still not processing what has been said; that being, u cannot quantify that the person is actually saved. You are presuming based on confession alone. That is not 100% validation. Hence, baptism confirms nothing. Both the paedo and credo are reacting according to command. Nowhere in scripture are we told to only baptize true elect believers. Discipleship is not akin to the elect alone. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> You're still not processing what has been said; that being, u cannot quantify that the person is actually saved. You are presuming based on confession alone. That is not 100% validation. Hence, baptism confirms nothing. Both the paedo and credo are reacting according to command. Nowhere in scripture are we told to only baptize true elect believers. Discipleship is not akin to the elect alone. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus.


We are commanded to baptize those who have heard of Jesus, been instructed, and have received Him as their Lord and Savior.
Do unsaved persons get baptized as adults? No doubt, but believers baptism would be the model as I understand it, as Paul explained to us, we are immersed down in the water into Christ, and raised up by faith into Christ.


----------



## Romans922

Dachaser said:


> We are commanded to baptize those who have heard of Jesus, been instructed, and have received Him as their Lord and Savior.



Is anyone arguing against this? Everyone here agrees with that statement no matter if you believe or do not believe in infant/covenant baptism. Also, it still seems like you aren't answering Scott.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't have time to read all the answers and interactions so I'm just going to respond to the Original Post as to "value".

I think that the more I'm grown in my understanding of theology and the condescension of God to the creature, the more I've grown in understanding the value of the Incarnation as well as the Sacraments themselves.

I was recently listening to Robert Godfrey describe an interaction betweenErasmus and Luther in which Luther criticized Erasmus' theology as bringing God down tothe level of man's understanding.

So many bring God down so that God is not merely condescending in His revelation but much of theology assumes in God's thoughts and actions as an analogy of man's thoughts and actions and not the other way around.

We think we understand things like decree and infinity and aseity and then apply them to God. Since God commands and thinks and reveals a thing in Scripture weassume we have an apprehension of it by our capacity.

Paedobaptism is a theology that respects the Creator/creature distinction and says, in effect, that God has decreed an elect people in eternity: something which the creature can never have access to. Yet, that same God, has condescended to us in the Son by way of Covenant. He has entered history and God's compassions and mercies have become human compassions and mercies.

He left us Sacraments not merely for our minds to ascend and say: "I know I'm elect and so I'm going to submit myself to an ordinance." Rather, He has given us visible signs that are united to a reality that only He can perform.We come as needful creatures not knowing the beginning from the end but He gives us historical signs that, right here, right now, connect to eternity.

As surely as the water washes away the filith of flesh so surely has God washed away the sins of all who have faith in the Son. It exists in history but, because itdoesn't depend upon an action of our will to make real His decree, it's something that we can look to with assurance.

Paedobaptists don't sweat the "who's elect?" dilemma. We minister Word and Sacrament and bid all to press in. The elderly saint who has walked with Christ for 50 years is no less bid to come, Today, and hear His voice. He is never called to assume that at some punctilliar point he knew for certain that he was elect and so had faith enough to be baptized. He was baptized and the twists and turns of indwelling sin tossed him against many rocks. Perhaps they, at times, dashed his confidence that he ever had faith. But, Today, He knows that the Savior saves all who trust in Him. He knows also, that the minister was announcing the Promise of God at the time of his baptism and God's Promises are yes and amen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Romans922 said:


> Is anyone arguing against this? Everyone here agrees with that statement no matter if you believe or do not believe in infant/covenant baptism. Also, it still seems like you aren't answering Scott.


How so? I would agree with Him that no one can be totally sure another is saved, but the practice of Baptism for those who now are professing salvation in Jesus seems to me to be the biblical norm.


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't have time to read all the answers and interactions so I'm just going to respond to the Original Post as to "value".
> 
> I think that the more I'm grown in my understanding of theology and the condescension of God to the creature, the more I've grown in understanding the value of the Incarnation as well as the Sacraments themselves.
> 
> I was recently listening to Robert Godfrey describe an interaction betweenErasmus and Luther in which Luther criticized Erasmus' theology as bringing God down tothe level of man's understanding.
> 
> So many bring God down so that God is not merely condescending in His revelation but much of theology assumes in God's thoughts and actions as an analogy of man's thoughts and actions and not the other way around.
> 
> We think we understand things like decree and infinity and aseity and then apply them to God. Since God commands and thinks and reveals a thing in Scripture weassume we have an apprehension of it by our capacity.
> 
> Paedobaptism is a theology that respects the Creator/creature distinction and says, in effect, that God has decreed an elect people in eternity: something which the creature can never have access to. Yet, that same God, has condescended to us in the Son by way of Covenant. He has entered history and God's compassions and mercies have become human compassions and mercies.
> 
> He left us Sacraments not merely for our minds to ascend and say: "I know I'm elect and so I'm going to submit myself to an ordinance." Rather, He has given us visible signs that are united to a reality that only He can perform.We come as needful creatures not knowing the beginning from the end but He gives us historical signs that, right here, right now, connect to eternity.
> 
> As surely as the water washes away the filith of flesh so surely has God washed away the sins of all who have faith in the Son. It exists in history but, because itdoesn't depend upon an action of our will to make real His decree, it's something that we can look to with assurance.
> 
> Paedobaptists don't sweat the "who's elect?" dilemma. We minister Word and Sacrament and bid all to press in. The elderly saint who has walked with Christ for 50 years is no less bid to come, Today, and hear His voice. He is never called to assume that at some punctilliar point he knew for certain that he was elect and so had faith enough to be baptized. He was baptized and the twists and turns of indwelling sin tossed him against many rocks. Perhaps they, at times, dashed his confidence that he ever had faith. But, Today, He knows that the Savior saves all who trust in Him. He knows also, that the minister was announcing the Promise of God at the time of his baptism and God's Promises are yes and amen.


The person who receives the communion though should knew that they themselves are saved by the Jesus that is present with them in the Communion in some fashion.
In same fashion, those receiving the ordinance of the baptism should realize that they have died in and now been raised up in Christ themselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dachaser said:


> The person who receives the communion though should knew that they themselves are saved by the Jesus that is present with them in the Communion in some fashion.
> In same fashion, those receiving the ordinance of the baptism should realize that they have died in and now been raised up in Christ themselves.


Thank you for demonstrating the theology that will be communicated to your children.

If you know you are saved, you are baptized. If you later doubt you were saved when you were baptized and now know you are saved then you were never baptized. God's Promises are bound to human conviction and knowledge.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## greenbaggins

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thank you for demonstrating the theology that will be communicated to your children.
> 
> If you know you are saved, you are baptized. If you later doubt you were saved when you were baptized and now know you are saved then you were never baptized. God's Promises are bound to human conviction and knowledge.



Just to piggyback on Rich's excellent point, Baptism is primarily something _God does_. This is the first point where credos mis-step. They tend to associate baptism with confession of faith as something the believer does to himself. The more aware credos will acknowledge that baptism is passive, but then it is something that the minister does. Now, of course, the minister is involved in performing the rite. However, if God is laying a promise on a person that whoever turns to Christ in faith will be saved, then why would God ever need to make that promise more than once per person? The ecumenical church creeds (based on Ephesians 4:5) acknowledge only one baptism. So then, consider an adult who wasn't saved the first time he was baptized. He becomes saved after he was baptized. Why would that then invalidate God's promise? In fact, such an occurrence would _validate God's promise_. If it doesn't invalidate God's promise, then an adult who comes to faith after baptism should not be re-baptized. It is not such a huge step from this point to paedo-baptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

greenbaggins said:


> Baptism is primarily something _God does_. This is the first point where credos mis-step. They tend to associate baptism with confession of faith as something the believer does to himself.


Lane, I don't think your critique applies to a Covenantal/Reformed Baptist position. The starting point for the Reformed Baptist position is summarised in the 1689 Confession 7:3 "This covenant is *based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son* concerning the redemption of the elect." This is indeed something *God does*.

That said, I am rethinking my Reformed Baptist position. I would be interested in any up to date critiques of astute modern day Reformed Baptist Covenant Theologians such as Pascal Denault, Brandon Adams and especially Sam Renihan's doctoral thesis recently published.

I have started reading Vos' "Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" which is excellent. Lane, I understand that if someone quotes Vos more than any other theologian on the Puritanboard, over the space of a year, you have instructed all moderators to give the person two bonus degrees of sanctification

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Just to piggyback on Rich's excellent point, Baptism is primarily something _God does_. This is the first point where credos mis-step. They tend to associate baptism with confession of faith as something the believer does to himself. The more aware credos will acknowledge that baptism is passive, but then it is something that the minister does. Now, of course, the minister is involved in performing the rite. However, if God is laying a promise on a person that whoever turns to Christ in faith will be saved, then why would God ever need to make that promise more than once per person? The ecumenical church creeds (based on Ephesians 4:5) acknowledge only one baptism. So then, consider an adult who wasn't saved the first time he was baptized. He becomes saved after he was baptized. Why would that then invalidate God's promise? In fact, such an occurrence would _validate God's promise_. If it doesn't invalidate God's promise, then an adult who comes to faith after baptism should not be re-baptized. It is not such a huge step from this point to paedo-baptism.


I would tend to see though that there is in the scriptures the Holy Spirit baptism that happens at time of the conversion, and then the water baptism once saved.


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thank you for demonstrating the theology that will be communicated to your children.
> 
> If you know you are saved, you are baptized. If you later doubt you were saved when you were baptized and now know you are saved then you were never baptized. God's Promises are bound to human conviction and knowledge.


I have given to my 2 sons the biblical truth that Jesus saved sinners by the message of the Gospel, and when the Holy Spirit enables one to receive it through faith, they turn to Jesus and are now saved. 
ALL who have been Baptism into Christ, the body by the Holy Spirit are one of His, and still are commanded to now receive the Water Baptism.


----------



## greenbaggins

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, I don't think your critique applies to a Covenantal/Reformed Baptist position. The starting point for the Reformed Baptist position is summarised in the 1689 Confession 7:3 "This covenant is *based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son* concerning the redemption of the elect." This is indeed something *God does*.
> 
> That said, I am rethinking my Reformed Baptist position. I would be interested in any up to date critiques of astute modern day Reformed Baptist Covenant Theologians such as Pascal Denault, Brandon Adams and especially Sam Renihan's doctoral thesis recently published.
> 
> I have started reading Vos' "Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" which is excellent. Lane, I understand that if someone quotes Vos more than any other theologian on the Puritanboard, over the space of a year, you have instructed all moderators to give the person two bonus degrees of sanctification



Stephen, I posted my opinion being fully aware that there are many covenantal baptists such as yourself. And, incidentally, may their tribe increase! However, I do need to ask whether the 1689 7:3 makes reference to _baptism_ as something God does, or _establishing the covenant_ as something God does. Your quotation seemed to be saying the latter, not the former. Paedos, of course, believe that God does both: he both establishes the covenants, and is the ultimate performer of baptism. I still tend to see Covenantal Baptists speaking of baptism as sequentially subsequent to conversion, and therefore connected to a public confession of faith of a converted person. 

Vos's article on the history of covenant theology is one of the very best pieces of historical theological scholarship I have ever read. I have not read Woolsey yet, though that is on my short list. Kudos to you on the sanctification idea. Good to see that someone can read my mind.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> the Holy Spirit baptism that happens at time of the conversion



David,
I have asked u a number of times over the last few months about the OT saint and the indwelling of the HS, to which you have never really answered; If the baptism of the spirit or indwelling is a NT phenomenon, how is it that the OT saint walked in faith and had any potential to sanctification if they did not possess the spirit of God?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> I have asked u a number of times over the last few months about the OT saint and the indwelling of the HS, to which you have never really answered; If the baptism of the spirit or indwelling is a NT phenomenon, how is it that the OT saint walked in faith and had any potential to sanctification if they did not possess the spirit of God?


I believe that the OT saint, was saved the exact same way that we now are, but the basis of the atonement of Jesus upon the Cross for our sins. I just do not as of yet see the Church proper as being in the OT, as the church proper was instituted by God at the time of Pentecost.,


----------



## Scott Bushey

You’re still not answering my question. I didn’t say anything about the church. Again, are you reading the posts that you’re responding to?


----------



## Scott Bushey

To be more accurate, in the past, you’ve made mention of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament, synonymous . If the gospel is the same in both testaments, The Holy Spirit would have to indwell both sets of Believers. Do you agree with this assessment?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> To be more accurate, in the past, you’ve made mention of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament, synonymous . If the gospel is the same in both testaments, The Holy Spirit would have to indwell both sets of Believers. Do you agree with this assessment?


The means of salvation has always been the same , based upon the Cross of Christ, and that saving Grace was through faith in Him, but the Gospel itself was given to the OT saints in not the full revelation that has came to us now under the coming of the messiah and the NC.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Can u please answer my question?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, I posted my opinion being fully aware that there are many covenantal baptists such as yourself. And, incidentally, may their tribe increase! However, I do need to ask whether the 1689 7:3 makes reference to _baptism_ as something God does, or _establishing the covenant_ as something God does. Your quotation seemed to be saying the latter, not the former. Paedos, of course, believe that God does both: he both establishes the covenants, and is the ultimate performer of baptism. I still tend to see Covenantal Baptists speaking of baptism as sequentially subsequent to conversion, and therefore connected to a public confession of faith of a converted person.


Yes I think you are right here, but then I guess a Reformed Baptist would reply that our Baptism is still God centered because God first establishes the covenant.

Talking of Vos, it would be lovely if an official biography was written of him. Perhaps part of the problem is that because he was an 'obscure' figure in his time (appreciated much more by later theologians but less so in his era) that there are limited primary sources to base a biography on.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


>


Do you have good medication for your headache

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Can u please answer my question?


I did, what part was not clear to you?


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you have good medication for your headache


Does dealing with reformed Baptists always cause severe headaches?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I did, what part was not clear to you?



I previously asked:


> To be more accurate, in the past, you’ve made mention of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament, synonymous . If the gospel is the same in both testaments, The Holy Spirit would have to indwell both sets of Believers. Do you agree with this assessment?



To which you responded with:



> The means of salvation has always been the same , based upon the Cross of Christ, and that saving Grace was through faith in Him, but the Gospel itself was given to the OT saints in not the full revelation that has came to us now under the coming of the messiah and the NC.



Your response is not directly answering my question. Again, I ask, if the gospel is the same in both testamental periods, would you agree that the OT saint had to have the indwelling spirit so as to not immediately apostatize the faith and have no potential for sanctification without Him?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

David, there are two testaments but one Bible; two dispensations but of one covenant ; two administrations but one church. One Christ in the two testaments; one Christ in the two administrations, Acts 7:37 “This is He that was in the *church *in the wilderness.* ”*

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Does dealing with reformed Baptists always cause severe headaches?



David,
I'll let the RB's deal with you on the matter of clarity on the "RB" position. Your answers have been clear as mud, self-defeating and contradictory, hence, Scott's questioning.....


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

One thing causes me frustration, yes, two things vex me greatly.

A paedobaptist who thinks he understands the credo position well but actually does not, and a credo who doesn't understand the credo position well but thinks he does.

Both are in evidence in this thread, and that's because we credos haven't done the best job over the last 400 years of making sure our people know (consistently) why we are what we are.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> I previously asked:
> 
> 
> To which you responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is not directly answering my question. Again, I ask, if the gospel is the same in both testamental periods, would you agree that the OT saint had to have the indwelling spirit so as to not immediately apostatize the faith and have no potential for sanctification without Him?


I believe that the OT saints were saved same way any of us have been, and that they re included in the saved Body of Christ, but I do not honestly know if all under the OC received the Holy Spirit in exactly same fashion we have, or if He indwelt only the prophets, Kings, priests.

I see God as not holding their sins against them, as He had their sins paid for and atoned for by the coming Cross of Jesus, but not sure if every saved person received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same fashion as we have now under the New Covenant.

I have tried to study on this issue a bit, and seems that there is not a fully unified position even among Calvinists/Reformed upon this issue.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> One thing causes me frustration, yes, two things vex me greatly.
> 
> A paedobaptist who thinks he understands the credo position well but actually does not, and a credo who doesn't understand the credo position well but thinks he does.
> 
> Both are in evidence in this thread, and that's because we credos haven't done the best job over the last 400 years of making sure our people know (consistently) why we are what we are.


Please elaborate on what the Credo position really means.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> but I do not honestly know if all under the OC received the Holy Spirit in exactly same fashion we have, or if He indwelt only the prophets, Kings, priests




Thank u for your answer. Thats helps.

2 questions to think about:
1) How would sanctification of the saint be possible if the HS were not in that person?

2)How could a person not immediately apostatize the faith if he didn't have the indwelling of the HS?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Thanks u for your answer. Thats helps.
> 
> 2 questions to think about:
> 1) How would sanctification of the saint be possible if the HS were not in that person?
> 
> 2)How could a person not immediately apostatize the faith if he didn't have the indwelling of the HS?


I honestly do not know those answers, but also wonder how Jesus being our High priest now, which he was not under the OC, helps us to maintain our faith and walk with God?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I honestly do not know those answers, but also wonder how Jesus being our High priest now, which he was not under the OC, helps us to maintain our faith and walk with God?



Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law

David,
Jesus was under the OC. He kept the Covenant of Works, perfectly. Christ cannot help anyone maintain our faith without the Holy Spirit guiding us-thats the point I am trying to make. 

If the gospel is the same, as u say, the HS would have to indwell both sets of saints.


----------



## Dachaser

They would not have had direct access to God though, nor Jesus as their High priest, correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> They would not have had direct access to God though, nor Jesus as their High priest, correct?



If I am understanding your question, If one believed in Christ/Messiah, Jesus would have to have been high priest. If there is only one gospel, that gospel would be through the mediation of Christ alone, never mind the time period.


----------



## Cymro

Christ was held out under the type of the OT high priest, just as the sacrifice of a lamb and it’s shed blood depicted the coming Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. It required faith to believe in the substance of the type, and faith is required to believe in the reality that has fulfilled the type. No man can say that Jesus is Lord save by the Holy Spirit, whether in the OT or New.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> If I am understanding your question, If one believed in Christ/Messiah, Jesus would have to have been high priest. If there is only one gospel, that gospel would be through the mediation of Christ alone, never mind the time period.


Jesus was not Jesus though until being the Incarnate God man at His birth, and He was just God the Son before that, so how could He be always functioning as our High Priest?


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> Christ was held out under the type of the OT high priest, just as the sacrifice of a lamb and it’s shed blood depicted the coming Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. It required faith to believe in the substance of the type, and faith is required to believe in the reality that has fulfilled the type. No man can say that Jesus is Lord save by the Holy Spirit, whether in the OT or New.


There was no Jesus until the Incarnation time though, for he was just God the Son, so was not yet in Hos roles as Mediator/Messiah.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> There was no Jesus until the Incarnation time though, for he was just God the Son, so was not yet in Hos roles as Mediator/Messiah.



So, all OT saints had no mediation nor messiah?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Jesus was not Jesus though until being the Incarnate God man at His birth, and He was just God the Son before that, so how could He be always functioning as our High Priest?



Who paid for Abraham’s sin?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So, all OT saints had no mediation nor messiah?


They did, but God was looking forward to the coming of Messiah to atone for them, but Jesus was not yet in Heaven as High Priest, as He was God the Son only at that time.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Who paid for Abraham’s sin?


Jesus Christ


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Jesus Christ



So, Jesus was 'Jesus' then?



> They did, but God was looking forward to the coming of Messiah to atone for them



No one is arguing against that.....needless to say, Christ was high Priest inside and outside of time for the elect, never mind the time period.


----------



## Cymro

David, the gospel existed in the OT and was dressed in types and shadows, which depicted a spiritual reality to come. The slain lamb represented Christ; Aaron the high priest typified Christ; the Temple, the altar, the candlestick, everything in that dispensation emblamatically represented Him. So that the OT believer looked on these shadows, and by faith saw their substance as pointing to Christ and his atoning work. Now you have never seen Christ, but by faith you believe on Him through his word. You take communion and do so by partaking of the elements that represent Christ and His atonement. The OT saint similarly saw the Christ who was to come, and you look back and see Him by faith through His word. Recall also that the Lord appeared in Christophanies in the OT. He the “angel of the covenant”went before Israel in the wilderness, and also manifested himself to Abraham and others. There is no difference between the salvation in both testaments, and it by the same Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> David, the gospel existed in the OT and was dressed in types and shadows, which depicted a spiritual reality to come. The slain lamb represented Christ; Aaron the high priest typified Christ; the Temple, the altar, the candlestick, everything in that dispensation emblamatically represented Him. So that the OT believer looked on these shadows, and by faith saw their substance as pointing to Christ and his atoning work. Now you have never seen Christ, but by faith you believe on Him through his word. You take communion and do so by partaking of the elements that represent Christ and His atonement. The OT saint similarly saw the Christ who was to come, and you look back and see Him by faith through His word. Recall also that the Lord appeared in Christophanies in the OT. He the “angel of the covenant”went before Israel in the wilderness, and also manifested himself to Abraham and others. There is no difference between the salvation in both testaments, and it by the same Christ.


I agree with you on this, but I also see Jesus as not being the High priest under the OC, as He was then only God the Son, and had not yet shed His blood, and died and rose up again to heaven.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So, Jesus was 'Jesus' then?
> 
> 
> 
> No one is arguing against that.....needless to say, Christ was high Priest inside and outside of time for the elect, never mind the time period.


There was no Jesus until the time of the Incarnation though, at least not in regards to His humanity.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> There was no Jesus until the time of the Incarnation though, at least not in regards to His humanity.



'His humanity'.....Do u see the fault in your logic?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> and had not yet shed His blood, and died and rose up again to heaven.



Rev 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Rev 13:8
> And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> 'His humanity'.....Do u see the fault in your logic?


Before the incarnation, was the Second person of the truine God "just" the Logos, word, God the Son?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Before the incarnation, was the Second person of the truine God "just" the Logos, word, God the Son?



Is God the Son, Jesus?



Dachaser said:


> yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.



No one is arguing against that; what is being argued is that the efficacious nature of Christ extends outside of time. This is exactly why the cited passage in Revelation states. Was Christ the lamb, slain before the foundation of the world?
Well, in the compound sense, yes. In the divided, no. This is where you are failing to make the biblical distinction.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.



Yes, but the efficacious nature of Christ's dying, extends from Gen 3:15, forward.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Before the incarnation, was the Second person of the truine God "just" the Logos, word, God the Son?



I have no idea what u are asking....Jesus is the Logos, the 2nd person of the Trinity, God the Son. He didn't become anyone new, outside of His humanity when he was born. He was still the same Son and Word.


----------



## Cymro

We have moved from the original post, and I tender apologies. But I would leave this last comment. David, did our Lord in human nature wear the High Priestly garments, or his mitre, or breast plate? Evidently not. So how do you know He was a High Priest? Would it not be in the same way as the OT believer? They by faith looked to Him as Prophet. Priest and King as designated and foretold in His word, and symbolically before their eyes in Caiaphas’ person. 
You now by faith believe the word that He bears the office of High Priest. It’s a spiritual understanding in both testaments. Aaron could never represent the church or offer sacrifice for sin as High Priest, but represented a greater to come, on which the worshiper trusted.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes, but the efficacious nature of Christ's dying, extends from Gen 3:15, forward.


Yes, for in the way God sees all things, the Cross of Jesus was already an accomplish event, but one that still had to be worked out in our historical time frame.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> I have no idea what u are asking....Jesus is the Logos, the 2nd person of the Trinity, God the Son. He didn't become anyone new, outside of His humanity when he was born. He was still the same Son and Word.


Before he became Human and dwelt among us, he was not Jesus of Nazareth though, but was the Word of God/Logos/God the Son. He did not exist as having humanity until the Incarnation.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Is God the Son, Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> No one is arguing against that; what is being argued is that the efficacious nature of Christ extends outside of time. This is exactly why the cited passage in Revelation states. Was Christ the lamb, slain before the foundation of the world?
> Well, in the compound sense, yes. In the divided, no. This is where you are failing to make the biblical distinction.


When He came as the Angel of the Lord in the OT, was not Jesus there, correct?


----------



## OPC'n

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Both are in evidence in this thread, and that's because we credos haven't done the best job over the last 400 years of making sure our people know (consistently) why we are what we are.



So you do agree that paedobaptism began during NT times!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> When He came as the Angel of the Lord in the OT, was not Jesus there, correct?



That is correct...

You earlier said:

"Before he became Human and dwelt among us, he was not Jesus of Nazareth though"

So, I'm a bit confused as both statements contradict each other...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

OPC'n said:


> So you do agree that paedobaptism began during NT times!



Hah. No. Not even remotely.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> That is correct...
> 
> You earlier said:
> 
> "Before he became Human and dwelt among us, he was not Jesus of Nazareth though"
> 
> So, I'm a bit confused as both statements contradict each other...


the man Jesus was physically born into History, and at that point moving forward, the Second person of the Godhead was both fully God and fully Man, but before that, He existed as "just " God Himself. His name would not have been Jesus, but God/Yahweh.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> the man Jesus was physically born into History, and at that point moving forward, the Second person of the Godhead was both fully God and fully Man, but before that, He existed as "just " God Himself. His name would not have been Jesus, but God/Yahweh.


I would caution the use of the phrase "the man Jesus was physically born..." as it often leads to confusion about the Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The humanity of Our Lord was not an individuated humanity. That humanity would not exist without the assumption of it by the Second Person of the Trinity.

Always worth a read:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I would caution the use of the phrase "the man Jesus was physically born..." as it often leads to confusion about the Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The humanity of Our Lord was not an individuated humanity. That humanity would not exist without the assumption of it by the Second Person of the Trinity.
> 
> Always worth a read:
> https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take
> 
> https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become


The very Person in the OT who came atimes as the Angel of the Lord had now came as Jesus, and thus forever would be the God/Man, fully God and fully Man.
He is the same Person....


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The very Person in the OT who came atimes as the Angel of the Lord had now came as Jesus, and thus forever would be the God/Man, fully God and fully Man.
> He is the same Person....


Let me test your understanding a wee bit, David.

Is the second person of the Trinity now a God-man with a glorified body that is omnipresent?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The very Person in the OT who came atimes as the Angel of the Lord had now came as Jesus, and thus forever would be the God/Man, fully God and fully Man.
> He is the same Person....



In earlier posts, you labored hard there was no "person" before the Incarnation. In this post, you assert the "person" in the O.T. is the same as Jesus. 

WOW!......just wow.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Let me test your understanding a wee bit, David.
> 
> Is the second person of the Trinity now a God-man with a glorified body that is omnipresent?


Yes


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> In earlier posts, you labored hard there was no "person" before the Incarnation. In this post, you assert the "person" in the O.T. is the same as Jesus.
> 
> WOW!......just wow.....


The same as in being the person of God in both OT/NT times. Before the Incarnation though, He was not known as being Jesus.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Yes


So wherever the Second Person of the Trinity is present (which is everywhere), He is present with a glorified body?


----------



## RefPres1647

"What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude.""

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

I'm not going to debate or argue because you are obviously much more well trained in theological matters than I am, but your quotes about the changing of names in marriage kind of hit me.

At birth, a woman is born to a name that she may or may not be destined to keep. Then love finds her in a husband who wants her to take his name and she gladly does it because of her love and obedience to him.

Can't we say that about a newly converted Christian? We are born to a spiritually dead, sinful nature and we are destined for destruction until God brings us to life and we as the bride of Christ love Him and gladly take His name out of love and obedience.

A Presbyterian sees the Christian as a child given a name (sign and seal in Baptism) to their Father (in hopes that they come to faith), while a baptist sees the woman who is sought out in love and grateful for that love (not that she chose it, but responded after being given the ability to love), takes the name (obedience in Baptism).

I'm know your analogy was meant for something completely different, but I couldn't help throwing this out there when I saw your marriage quote. I'm definitely not trying to argue because, again, I am not in any way trained enough to have a thorough baptistic debate with anyone, this was just an observation.


----------



## deleteduser99

RefBapAmil said:


> "What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude.""
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not going to debate or argue because you are obviously much more well trained in theological matters than I am, but your quotes about the changing of names in marriage kind of hit me.
> 
> At birth, a woman is born to a name that she may or may not be destined to keep. Then love finds her in a husband who wants her to take his name and she gladly does it because of her love and obedience to him.
> 
> Can't we say that about a newly converted Christian? We are born to a spiritually dead, sinful nature and we are destined for destruction until God brings us to life and we as the bride of Christ love Him and gladly take His name out of love and obedience.
> 
> A Presbyterian sees the Christian as a child given a name (sign and seal in Baptism) to their Father (in hopes that they come to faith), while a baptist sees the woman who is sought out in love and grateful for that love (not that she chose it, but responded after being given the ability to love), takes the name (obedience in Baptism).
> 
> I'm know your analogy was meant for something completely different, but I couldn't help throwing this out there when I saw your marriage quote. I'm definitely not trying to argue because, again, I am not in any way trained enough to have a thorough baptistic debate with anyone, this was just an observation.



A good spirit of humility 

Changing your analogy just a bit...

What if God calls that baby to be His own and gives them a name first?

That’s what God did with Israel in circumcision and making them Abraham’s children (Gn 17 “to be God to you and your offspring after you”). God is everyone’s God, but is Israel’s God in an unique way that He isn’t for others, and circumcision marked that claim. It’s what we believe God does in bringing a child in the world to Christian parents. Baptism is not saying that they are regenerated, but He claims them as His own in a way He hasn’t others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RefPres1647

Harley said:


> A good spirit of humility
> 
> Changing your analogy just a bit...
> 
> What if God calls that baby to be His own and gives them a name first?
> 
> That’s what God did with Israel in circumcision and making them Abraham’s children (Gn 17 “to be God to you and your offspring after you”). God is everyone’s God, but is Israel’s God in an unique way that He isn’t for others, and circumcision marked that claim. It’s what we believe God does in bringing a child in the world to Christian parents. Baptism is not saying that they are regenerated, but He claims them as His own in a way He hasn’t others.


Thanks!

And that's why I didn't think the analogy was perfect because it is either a child or a bride if you get my jist. It all really depends on how one views the covenants.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> So wherever the Second Person of the Trinity is present (which is everywhere), He is present with a glorified body?


He would have to be , As Jesus retains for all eternity the same risen Body that was glorified when He was resurrected from the grave.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> He would have to be , As Jesus retains for all eternity the same risen Body that was glorified when He was resurrected from the grave.



It would be beneficial to review the creed of Chalcedon, where it is clearly stated that each nature "retains its own attributes". Omnipresense is an attribute of the divine nature and not of the human. Your stated view is the same view that allows Rome to have multiple sacrifices across the world at the same time. This is errant and violates Chalcedon, at least.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> It would be beneficial to review the creed of Chalcedon, where it is clearly stated that each nature "retains its own attributes". Omnipresense is an attribute of the divine nature and not of the human. Your stated view is the same view that allows Rome to have multiple sacrifices across the world at the same time. This is errant and violates Chalcedon, at least.....


Jesus "physical" Body is right now in heaven seated at the throne of God, and yet His Divine Being/Person is also throughout all creation. How he can do that I do not fully understand, but accept it as being the truth.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> So wherever the Second Person of the Trinity is present (which is everywhere), He is present with a glorified body?





Dachaser said:


> He would have to be , As Jesus retains for all eternity the same risen Body that was glorified when He was resurrected from the grave.





Dachaser said:


> Jesus "physical" Body is right now in heaven seated at the throne of God, and yet His Divine Being/Person is also throughout all creation. How he can do that I do not fully understand, but accept it as being the truth.



Your first quote above is contrary to the teachings that the Lord's physical body is not present at the Supper. Unless you are now a Lutheran, I urge you to study the matter more fully.

See #170 at:
http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/wlc.htm#166

Your second quote is a wee bit more proper, unless you still maintain that the glorified body accompanies the omnipresence of God. The quote also seems to imply you distinguish that this {glorified} "body" present on the throne is not an the actual Person of Our Lord.
*
So which is it, David?*


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Your first quote above is contrary to the teachings that the Lord's physical body is not present at the Supper. Unless you are now a Lutheran, I urge you to study the matter more fully.
> 
> See #170 at:
> http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/wlc.htm#166
> 
> Your second quote is a wee bit more proper, unless you still maintain that the glorified body accompanies the omnipresence of God. The quote also seems to imply you distinguish that this {glorified} "body" present on the throne is not an the actual Person of Our Lord.
> *
> So which is it, David?*


Jesus is right now seated in Heaven in His glorified bodily Form, but He also is at the same time omnipresent throughout His creation, as He is God.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Jesus "physical" Body is right now in heaven seated at the throne of God, and yet His Divine Being/Person is also throughout all creation. How he can do that I do not fully understand, but accept it as being the truth.



This sounds Nestorian.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> This sounds Nestorian.


Which would be?


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> This sounds Nestorian.


Jesus is in heaven in His glorified Body, as in being a Man, but also throughout creation, as being also in the very form/Person of God.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Which would be?



Tried and found wanting heresy, ala Chalcedon


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Which would be?


David,

Did you follow the links in my earlier post:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-paedobaptism.95023/page-5#post-1161289

The very first embedded link points you to this:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-Jesus’-impeccability.94819/#post-1157236

As you can see Nestorianism is clearly shown and denounced.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Did you follow the links in my earlier post:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-paedobaptism.95023/page-5#post-1161289
> 
> The very first embedded link points you to this:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-Jesus’-impeccability.94819/#post-1157236
> 
> As you can see Nestorianism is clearly shown and denounced.


After the earlier postings on this issue, I did go back to one of my ST books and looked up Nestorianism, and did see how the views I was giving could see to be getting close to what that heresy held with the person of Jesus.
My view would be that Jesus is but One Person, who within Him are the natures of both fully God and Fully man.


----------



## greenbaggins

The _extra Calvinisticum_ needs to be put into play here. Christ's human and divine natures are never separate. However, as God, Jesus is present according to His divine nature everywhere. Therefore, the divine nature extends beyond (not alongside) the human nature. This is the _extra Calvinisticum_. Nestorianism would claim that the two natures are separate, whereas we would say they are distinct yet inseparable. Wherever Christ's limited human body is, there is the full God-man. The human nature is not omnipresent. However, the divine nature is. We have to be very careful here, or we will wind up divorcing human from divine, as the Nestorians do, or else limiting the divine, which is what the Eutychians did.


----------



## Gforce9

greenbaggins said:


> The _extra Calvinisticum_ needs to be put into play here. Christ's human and divine natures are never separate. However, as God, Jesus is present according to His divine nature everywhere. Therefore, the divine nature extends beyond (not alongside) the human nature. This is the _extra Calvinisticum_. Nestorianism would claim that the two natures are separate, whereas we would say they are distinct yet inseparable. Wherever Christ's limited human body is, there is the full God-man. The human nature is not omnipresent. However, the divine nature is. We have to be very careful here, or we will wind up divorcing human from divine, as the Nestorians do, or else limiting the divine, which is what the Eutychians did.



Excellent, Lane! It is my belief every Christian should memorize the Chalcedonian creed.


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> The _extra Calvinisticum_ needs to be put into play here. Christ's human and divine natures are never separate. However, as God, Jesus is present according to His divine nature everywhere. Therefore, the divine nature extends beyond (not alongside) the human nature. This is the _extra Calvinisticum_. Nestorianism would claim that the two natures are separate, whereas we would say they are distinct yet inseparable. Wherever Christ's limited human body is, there is the full God-man. The human nature is not omnipresent. However, the divine nature is. We have to be very careful here, or we will wind up divorcing human from divine, as the Nestorians do, or else limiting the divine, which is what the Eutychians did.


What view would it be, that I do not hold with, that sees Jesus as having 2 natures, but basically kept bouncing back and forth between them, so He could say did not know the time or hour, and then later on know the very thoughts of the Pharisees?


----------



## greenbaggins

Dachaser said:


> What view would it be, that I do not hold with, that sees Jesus as having 2 natures, but basically kept bouncing back and forth between them, so He could say did not know the time or hour, and then later on know the very thoughts of the Pharisees?



Hmm, I'm not sure if the view you describe has a name, but it is close to Nestorianism, because alternation of natures is very close to division of natures. It is a bizarre view that you describe. I guess if I had the somewhat dubious honor of naming it, I should call it the "toggle switch" heresy.


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure if the view you describe has a name, but it is close to Nestorianism, because alternation of natures is very close to division of natures. It is a bizarre view that you describe. I guess if I had the somewhat dubious honor of naming it, I should call it the "toggle switch" heresy.


I encountered it a lot while in Charismatic circles, as many taught that Jesus was divine, but that he pretty much just allowed His humanity to be on display, and all of His miracles , and even keeping from sinning, was due to Him fully relying upon the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> God formally put the children of believers into the externally administered sphere of his covenant in Gen.17 (paraphrasing Warfield)



I like the wording of this statement. It has been a long time since I read B. B. Warfield on the subject of baptism. Where, exactly, does he make the argument that the children of believers are in the externally administered sphere of the covenant of grace?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As noted, the terms are mine and drawn from who knows how many sources; the thought that prompted them here is BBW's.

https://www.monergism.com/studies-theology-b-b-warfield
13. THE POLEMICS OF INFANT BAPTISM

closing words of the article:
"So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to today, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children and that the members of the visible Church consist of believers and their children -- all of whom have a right to all the ordinances of the visible Church, each in its appointed season. The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children."​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ah, yes, I remember that quote now. I read _Studies in Theology_ a long time ago. Thank for sharing, Bruce.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I like the wording of this statement. It has been a long time since I read B. B. Warfield on the subject of baptism. Where, exactly, does he make the argument that the children of believers are in the externally administered sphere of the covenant of grace?


Given that Baptists also would see children and young adults who have not yet been saved also under the influence of the church, teachers, saved parents etc., what would be the practical difference in regarding children being under the external new Covenant?


----------

