# Response to 1 Cor. 7:14 thread, off topic:



## JohnV (Dec 29, 2005)

After thinking this through again I realize that the way this topic has gone has hit a few sensitive spots. I am a father of eleven children, and a grandfather, and more children marrying and having children of their own to add to my grandfatherhood. I can say that I know well what Paul is talking about in that passage, seeing the proposition in question not as a consequence but as and antecedent in the argument presented. I am not personally afraid of this text being a pivotal text upon which not only my family is built, but upon which they are deemed as included in the covenant. And it is more than that. 

It is not for me to expound Scripture, but it is for me to believe Scripture for myself, and to judge whether the teaching given to me by a church is true or not. I take this text in its entire context, and the proposition of the holiness of the children is stated as an antecedent, not a consequence, in accordance with Jesus' own teachings, found in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Though the whole world, and a contemporary church as well, may have a different view of children than this, I will stick to Jesus' teachings, including what Paul here says, as being received from Christ, not men. 

For me this is not a clinical scenario; it is very real. 

I am not at all convinced by Martin's argument that this verse suggests that children could not have been baptized in Corinth. Though it may follow from his line of thinking, it does not follow necessarily. I can appreciate the Baptist approach, and even believe that Baptists are very godly men. Indeed, I know that they are. I know, then, that God has not given to them, or perhaps has not given to me, the understanding and sense of His Word on the matter of children in the church. We have not been able to convince each other; but what is more, one of the parties, or perhaps both, have not received from the Spirit the insight to understand the matter. 

I am content with that. I have to be. If the Spirit does not find it necessary to grant the understanding, in answer to earnest prayer, then who am I to find fault with my brother for not understanding? Instead, I find fault with myself for not understanding them, for that is far better for me. I find fault with my Presbyterian brothers for putting up barriers where the Spirit does not. I find fault with exegetes who parse a text only to obfuscate or conceal the plain meaning of it. I find fault with discussion falling into useless rancor and finger-pointing. I find fault with disputings over words that can yield no solutions of consequence. But I have no right to stand off from a brother whom Christ has called His own. 

If we could just get back to the way we were discussing these things at the first. Sure, it may be that some hold that the Credo view is a courting of dispensationalism or Arminianism, but by the same token we should take seriously the charge that the paedo view is a courting of the sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic church. For it is a truth, if only we ourselves would be willing to see the blatant exposure of it. Take these seriously, because it is for that reason that our dear brothers in the Lord are given to believe what we hold to be in error, all the while showing a real, sincere, and true faith in our Lord and His Word. Views are views, nothing more; no matter what the degree the person holds who makes his view known. What we have as certain is given to each of us equally, in a perspicuous and sufficient Word ( plainly enough, and enough plainly. ) 

But whatever the difference, if we have no synod over us to guide is into being one, each denomination having its own, with tendentiousness for self-justifying, how are we going to solve this problem here? Are we going to pretend such authority? No, of course not. But we can lay a foundation for open communion and fellowship to make an eventual synod possible. 

Why not make that our aim?


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 29, 2005)

Great, substantive post John!

... and the placement of these texts concerning children in the loci of key marriage texts in Matt 19, Mark 10, and 1 Corinthians 7 continue to reinforce my beliefs about why God sets such a high standard for martial fidelity in the covenantal faithfulness of husbands and wives toward one another. God's promise in 1 Cor 7:14 shows His covenantal faithfulness to the family even when one spouse is not a regenerate believer, but consents to remain in faithful in the marriage.

This all goes together for the sake of raising children according to God's design. There is no reason why we should presume that the children of at least one truly regenerate believer are unbelievers until proven otherwise. Others have addressed this with far more articulation than I'm able to. However, I would only add that Scriptures overwhelmingly admonish God's covenant people to instruct and train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord through thought, word, and deed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 30, 2005)

John,

I agree that there should be less rancor - even as I am chief of sinners in that regard. I should be less obnoxious than I have been. I'm working on it but am a sinner saved by Grace.

I'm not certain I agree with this:


> Sure, it may be that some hold that the Credo view is a courting of dispensationalism or Arminianism, but by the same token we should take seriously the charge that the paedo view is a courting of the sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic church. For it is a truth, if only we ourselves would be willing to see the blatant exposure of it. Take these seriously, because it is for that reason that our dear brothers in the Lord are given to believe what we hold to be in error, all the while showing a real, sincere, and true faith in our Lord and His Word. Views are views, nothing more; no matter what the degree the person holds who makes his view known. What we have as certain is given to each of us equally, in a perspicuous and sufficient Word ( plainly enough, and enough plainly. )


It is possible that only one or neither side is courting with an "-ism". If one is convinced that the Scriptures teach something he must surely evaluate whether it is influenced by a poor theological framework but Baptist must not assume they have had dispensationalism blatantly exposed or that we Paedos have had Roman Catholic sacerdotalism blantantly exposed. If one of the sides is grounded in the Truth, would it not be problematic to move away from where they stand? I'm not certain what the implications of what you're suggesting are.

I accept that there are fundamental presuppositions at odds here. It does not affect my fellowship with Reformed Baptists. I consider Dr. James White to be a personal friend among others. I attend a Baptist Church in Japan at present.

I must be willing to be Reformed by God's Word and to listen to the word's of earnest men of God. Nevertheless, I am not shy of sparks that might fly during certain sensitive discussions. While rancor and disdain is not in order in such cases, I really don't have a problem with tension, challenging questions, and _reducio ad absurdum_.

As for my part, a sinner saved by Grace, I am praying to be much more gracious in the matter.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> But whatever the difference, if we have no synod over us to guide is into being one, each denomination having its own, with tendentiousness for self-justifying, how are we going to solve this problem here? Are we going to pretend such authority? No, of course not. But we can lay a foundation for open communion and fellowship to make an eventual synod possible.
> 
> Why not make that our aim?



Yes. Love demands that it would be the motivation of all our exertions. However, I am pessimistic that such a fundamental difference in our views on the covenant would bring about a synod composed of Baptist and Reformed.

I do measure my words. Historically, the categories were not 'Reformed' and 'Reformed Paedo-baptist'.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 30, 2005)

Brian and Rich:

Thank you for your responses. Your attitude, Rich, is especially welcome. And Brian, your observation concerning marriage is a joy to read. 

I've written a lengthy response to each of you, but each time I've erased it. And again this time. I just want people to think about what they post.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 30, 2005)

> Historically, the categories were not 'Reformed' and 'Reformed Paedo-baptist'.


True enough, but if we include children who are not old enough to make a confession of faith in the covenant, then surely Baptists who _are_ old enough are included too. And if they belong to the church, then they are eligible to be included at a synod of Christian congregations, of Christian assembly of the true Church of Christ. They certainly are not inferior to us spiritually; not at present anyways.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 30, 2005)

I fear this post may make me look really, really stupid. (Man, it's a good thing I am used to looking dumb.)

This controversy over baptism has me really confused. It seems to be a huge issue with many reformers. It frustrates me bacause the arguments become incredibly complex with repeated use of words like "proper context", "Calvin says", etc.

I interpreted 1 Cor. 7:14 to say that a believer's children are holy simply because they are children of believers. 

I realize that once they are at the so-called "Age of Accountability" this will change. I also realize that this age is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but I also think God holds us more accountable for our decisions at a certain age (say 14).

Anyway, let's say we look at this from a "motivational standpoint."

Let's say a parent does not baptize his child because he believes only people of a certain age can properly understand baptism, salvation, the Bible, etc. Therefore, 2 year olds should not be baptized.

Let's say another parent says, "let's baptize our infant for these reasons...."

I suspect many parents want to baptize their children simply bacause they FEEL it increases their chances of raising a Christian child. (I realize there is little Biblical basis for this belief.)

I have also seen parents get a whole bunch of pastors together to "dedicate their child to God." Again, I suspect the motivation was to increase the chances of raising a Christian child, and again with the possible exception of Samuel, I see little Biblical basis.

So, here we have 3 different ways of treating infants. 

No doubt, 2 of them of wrong.

However, each of these ways seems to be motivated by a LOVE for the child and hopefully a respect and acknowledgement of God.

Question:
Is it possible that on the baptism issue, the issue in God's eyes is not precisely if or how the child is baptized. The issue is: Was the motivation for whatever decision made in love?

Romans 14 talks about how different Christians may eat different foods, consider different days sacred, etc. I keep this in mind when I deal with Seventh Day Adventists.

Can we approach infant baptism the same way, or am I about to be burned at the stake?

Have I greatly over-simplified this issue?

I suspect that arguing over this issue may have wasted a lot of time - and caused huge divisions between good people - in years gone by.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 30, 2005)

Oh, please let me explain my motivation for the previous post.

My father told me that God made Christianity simple so that simple people like him with little education can "get to heaven." (My father was modest.)

When I look at how complex and lengthy the arguments are over baptism, I can not help but think that something is amiss.

If a Christian needs a triple-digit IQ to understand proper baptism procedure, then maybe it will be one of those issues that God will accept different intrepretations. (Oh, that last sentence can get me into big trouble. Lord, please be patient with me.)


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 30, 2005)

Regarding our dear Baptist brethren and their children. I've known many, many Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, and "other Evangelical" families who make incredible investments in their children's spiriutal growth from the cradle forward. In fact many such parents have the privilege of "helping" their child understand personal faith in Christ Jesus at very early ages. Although many of these folks are "Arminians of some stripe", I believe that God still honors His covenantal faithfulness and by His sovereign grace regenerates these Children according to his masterful mystery of election.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> 
> Can we approach infant baptism the same way, or am I about to be burned at the stake?



We would never do that- we could never get together on how exactly to do it.

Which makes my point.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 30, 2005)

Henry:

In 1 Cor. 13 you find "all things" and "love" put together in a rather comprehensive way. I get from that that "love" and "all things" mean just what they mean, and no less. Still, Henry, baptism is baptism, and love itself does not make baptism. It makes it efficacious, in that God loved us first; but it is still a matter of a sacrament that is bestowed through the Church. 

Brian:
I have some friends as well who are Baptist, some of whom are respected teachers of the Bible. I agree with your observation, and can say the same thing. Maybe I don't understand their incentive for their dedication, it being different than mine, but that dedication is every bit as much there as mine is; and more, I want to live up to their example. It rests on God's promises, not our efforts; our efforts are a response, not a foundation. That is the true Reformed understanding. And here, on this matter, we are no better than our Baptist brothers. Not only are they our equals, but in some cases our betters. Pastor Way comes to mind. 

If that is the crux of our taking our differences to each other, then a synod is more than just a possibility. Not a short, cursory, business-like affair we are used to in our little denominational circles, ruled by time constraints, but one of duration and purpose; one of true dedication to the unity of God's people. 

We can play our little part right here, by going back to the original assumptions this Board started on, and promoting them. That's what I'm trying to do: restore those original assumptions.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 31, 2005)

In reply to David:

Your answer is not reassuring. I'm now happy there are not many Reformers in Canada. I'm surrounded by heathens that could care less about infant baptisms. No burnings for Henry.

In reply to John:

Forgive me if I struggle with your language. I am a relative novice in theology. Sometimes I feel that you guys are way out of my league.

I am not debating the pro's or con's of infant baptism per se.

My issue is with the implications of the wrong decision.

What I see is a lot of serious and sincere Christians differing on this issue since the 16th century. If I am not mistaken, someone in Geneva got burned at the stake over this issue during Calvin's time!

I realize baptism is a huge sacrament. However, let's say that infant baptism is in fact wrong and some sincere Christian decides in good faith that he would feel more proper if his 2 year old were baptized: What are the implications?

Now God frowns upon all sin, I know. But I was baptized at around 2 years of age, and rebaptized when I was 30 years old. 

If infant baptism is wrong, what are the implications for my father. Did he sin - even though he felt he was doing the right thing in love? I hope not. He was doing his best.

And likewise, if infant baptism is correct, what are the implications for Christian parents that refuse infant baptism.

This whole issue may seem silly to many of you, however, to me it presses many buttons. 

Reformers focus very much on law - while not considering motivation that greatly. 

I spent 9 years in a Vineyard church environment (yeah, the one in Toronto.) I disagree with a lot of Vineyard teaching now, however, when I read Reformed authors I begin to miss Vineyard. 

When I see heated debates on baptisms, I wonder what grave implications there are for making the wrong decision.

To use an legal analogy:

If you have a legal case in the Supreme Court of Canada, you will have lawyers debating minor, minor points of law. One of these minor points can blow an entire case - with severe implications. This is how Reformed Theology looks to me. It's scary man.

If you have a legal case in small claims court (aka the court of equity), the judge is more apt to take a lenient stance. If you can prove a common sense, good-faith position, even though your case may have flaws, you may still win. This is how Vineyard looks to me - though I have severe issues with many Vineyard teachings.

A man studies baptism procedure in the Bible. He makes the wrong decision on infant baptism. Then what? 

This issue over "missing the mark" arises when you read the wrong Bible translation, drink alcohol, etc.

I hope this makes sense. 

I know there is no cut and dried answer. It just seems that Reformers do not use the word "grace" as much as those shameful Pentecostals, et al.

I sometimes think Reformers and Pentecostals are at opposite ends of the grace continium. Pentecostals rely too much on grace; Reformers too little. Though we all need a ton of grace.


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Brian:
> I have some friends as well who are Baptist, some of whom are respected teachers of the Bible.
> If that is the crux of our taking our differences to each other, *then a synod is more than just a possibility. Not a short, cursory, business-like affair we are used to in our little denominational circles, ruled by time constraints, but one of duration and purpose; one of true dedication to the unity of God's people... *



... now such a synod could be a wonderful idea. Could us self-centered Americans (and others from Western cultures) dare part with our _greatest teachers_ (men like Piper, James White, Thomas Aschol, Kenneth Tablot, D. James Kennedy, Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, Micheal Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Kenneth Gentry, etc. come to mind). I'm sure there are many, many more who would be able and necessary for this worthy "summit". I do believe that all particpants would have to agree on a monergistic salvation, the sufficiency of Scripture, God's eternal decree, etc. 

In other words, basically "Reformed" brethren who divide over baptism, local church government, etc. It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a synod. No doubt to deal with these things substantively would take months on end and what would be the end result? A new Reformed confession? More unity (or less)?


----------



## satz (Dec 31, 2005)

I don't want to make any comment on the issue of baptism itself, but i definitely can relate to Henry's feelings about the division and arguments over doctrine and practice.

There are so many issues over which many godly men disagree. Who is right? How can we know for sure? How sure must you be before committing yourself to a certain doctrine or practice that might have heavy implications for your christian life?

Sometimes it does feel incredibly confusing and frustrating, as if with all the debate and disargreement going on we can never be 100% sure what we are doing is totally biblical.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> My issue is with the implications of the wrong decision.
> 
> However, let's say that infant baptism is in fact wrong and some sincere Christian decides in good faith that he would feel more proper if his 2 year old were baptized: What are the implications?
> ...



Henry: 

I wanted to edit your post to the main points, but did not want to edit out too much. You touch on a number of things, each of which is worth an address. Let me, though, just respond to a couple of them. 

I can understand your position. It is the"third" position; i.e., paedo, credo, and neither for nor against, or rather, up in the air about it. I've wrestled with that same problem on behalf of a friend of mine. It is not an easy one, and perhaps a deeper problem than the mere difference between views. You are living with the ramifications that others took for granted when they were just making decisions about which baptism to recognize, either for themselves and their children, or corporately as a church. 

The first thing that I would suggest is that you have taken the "step back and analyze" approach already, to some degree. Before you overanalyze what is really there, step back in and know that there are serious and sincere Christians who are not just debating their points of view, but are wrestling with themselves and each other over things they themselves are not sure about. Know that, besides the issue of baptism, there is a deeper theology in the Reformed faith than the oversimplified derogations on the open theological market. There is more unity than there is disparity, which is also indicated in the debates, but is not as clearly discerned. 

That is one of the things I am trying to emphasize. I am sincerely suggesting a synod; but I am also using the idea as a counterpoint, a double-pointed argument you might say. If you stray too far off one tangent, or off the other, you are going off topic. This way I can steer the discussion somewhat. And this is precisely what I have in mind here: the greater unity, with a possibility of a meeting of heads and hearts; and a re-establishment of discussion as originally conceptualized. Do you see how the one guides the other? 

Now, as to the main point of your concern, I think you can know more than you are hoping for right now. When the Word offers comfort for the sinner, it offers real comfort, not just orchestrated words to cover up the hurt. The Word offers you this:


> Rom 8:1,2: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
> 
> vss. 37-39 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Baptism is not a hindrance. Even the best of intentions can be laden with sin, but they are not a hindrance. If baptism is not a comfort to you, at least know that it is not a hindrance. I can't repeat it often enough. It is only so if you make it so, but of itself it is not. 

It is my contention that we can know. I also believe that it is a lack of willingness to submit to truth that keeps us from knowing, not that there is not enough information. We're just not handling it right. I'm thinking about collective handling here. I think a synod could accomplish a lot, but its going to take work and sacrifice, but no compromise. 

Now, that's going to make it sound even harder for you, I know. But I said this to call your attention to something that might make it easier. God does indeed instruct us with every good thing that is needed. His Word is sufficient, and it is clear. It is we who are insufficient, and who muddy up the stream of truth. And in this you are right, that we need to rely on grace more. I would differ with you on who spends more time on grace, whether Pentacostals or Reformed; I cannot agree with you on that. I realize, though, that you are speaking experientially here, not theologically, and that makes a difference on your behalf. Be that as it may, I still disagree. But all the same, we do need to rely on grace all the more. 

So, to answer your question about who sinned, I think that it is not the right question to ask, for even if you knew it would not help the problem-solving any. You are still left with which one is right. Baptism is administered by the church, not the individual. So leave it to God to sort that part of it out, because the church works on God's behalf. Only you be faithful from here on out. And pray for understanding in the matter. God does give plentifully, much more than you ask for. If you ask it so as to glorify God, then He will not deny you your petition. He will tell you what you need to know. Its already there in His Word; you just need the illumination of the Spirit to see it. Then you'll wonder how you didn't see it before, because so many before have been saying it all along. 

That's as far as I can go, because there are limits. You have to know some things, but the rest you have to work out with real theologians instead of me, and especially with your own church.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> ... now such a synod could be a wonderful idea. Could us self-centered Americans (and others from Western cultures) dare part with our _greatest teachers_ (men like Piper, James White, Thomas Aschol, Kenneth Tablot, D. James Kennedy, Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, Micheal Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Kenneth Gentry, etc. come to mind). I'm sure there are many, many more who would be able and necessary for this worthy "summit". I do believe that all particpants would have to agree on a monergistic salvation, the sufficiency of Scripture, God's eternal decree, etc.
> 
> In other words, basically "Reformed" brethren who divide over baptism, local church government, etc. It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a synod. No doubt to deal with these things substantively would take months on end and what would be the end result? A new Reformed confession? More unity (or less)?



Why would we need to part with the men who helped build the present day foundations for such a lofty work? If such differences need to be worked out, then lets get to it. Aren't you looking forward to such a challenge? I'm sure you are, otherwise you would not have noticed these goals. Brian, you've got the idea!


----------



## JohnV (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> I don't want to make any comment on the issue of baptism itself, but i definitely can relate to Henry's feelings about the division and arguments over doctrine and practice.
> 
> There are so many issues over which many godly men disagree. Who is right? How can we know for sure? How sure must you be before committing yourself to a certain doctrine or practice that might have heavy implications for your christian life?
> ...


Those are the very things that need addressing, Mark. I know these things can be overcome. We're not making new tracks here, but retracing, and hopefully recovering what the Church once had. Sometimes we have more unity when we were hoping for a solution than after we thought we have achieved one. So let's aim high, that way our goal keeps us united longer. Who knows what we can achieve along the way. I am not confident of us; I'm confident of the Spirit's blessing. No pretenses, no favorite doctrines, no precepts of man, just the truth of God's Word and the Spirit of truth guiding us.


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



John, my comment about "parting with" these men is in the sense that they would need to convene jointly for several months and probably be absent from their home churches, teaching positions, families, etc. during much of this time.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 31, 2005)

> In reply to David:
> 
> Your answer is not reassuring. I'm now happy there are not many Reformers in Canada. I'm surrounded by heathens that could care less about infant baptisms. No burnings for Henry.



Right. No burnings for Henry. Sorry.

Religions are either exclusive, inclusive, or universal. The nature of being set apart by God entails exclusivity. The reason the Reformed are hated is because we 'out Christian' other Christians. Other Christians well recognize when a group exhibits more holiness. This is a cause for envy. No one hates someone who is irrelevant. 

(Roman Catholicism is marked by inclusion when they say there are other paths to God. Dispensationalism also teaches Jews have a separate covenant and thus another path to God.)

In this cursed world (my point about non-agreement in matters of cremation) we do better by maintaining high standards exactly because our sinful natures are so willing to compromise.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 31, 2005)

In reply to John:

Thanks for your response. The Romans 8 part is comforting. The rest is somewhat confusing. (I'm not that bright.)

At the risk of being struck down by lightning, I have a few really basic questions.

Question 1:

The Bible is self-sufficient. It is all we should need. 

Yet this baptism issue has festered in the church for centuries. Unlike you, I do not think a synod will finally resolve this issue. I fear it may only cause more division. (Or, maybe not. It may encourage people to think more about the Bible.) 

No doubt, God could foresee that baptism would be an issue with the Reformers 10,000 years ago. 

Why did not God CLEARLY say either 1) you shall baptize infants or 2) you shall NOT baptize infants?

Question 2:

Is the fact that God did NOT say, "you shall baptize infants" mean you should not. End of discussion? 

Question 3:

Is this purely an issue of Christian liberty, and that any debate runs the risk of hurting a weaker brother?

I suspect someone with a double-digit IQ should be able to figure this one out. This should not require a synod of Phds. 

Question 4:

What part of the puzzle are we missing? It can not be this difficult.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> John, my comment about "parting with" these men is in the sense that they would need to convene jointly for several months and probably be absent from their home churches, teaching positions, families, etc. during much of this time.



You are right, I misunderstood what you said. Thanks for clearing that up, and please accept my apologies. 

You know, we could give these men weekends off. I mean, they don't have to be sequestered to do the job. And it is not the work of just such men either. Much of the leg work, the hammering out of some lesser things, and other administrative duties, can be done while these men are on vacation of sorts. Then when they get back to the table, they can go over what has been done while they were away. 

The thing about this is that approvals don't happen over night. They'll need time to be slept on, perhaps for many nights, before they get the final nod, if they do. 

If they could do it in Dordt and Westminster, before there were 747's and Lincolns, when mustangs were wild horses instead of fast and fancy cars that can cover in one hour what used to take days, then why can't we do it today? If you ask me, the need is even greater in our day, but so are the logistics much more favourable. The greater concern is not whether we can afford to have men do this, but whether we have men to do this. Do they have the heart for it? If they do, then the rest is not a problem that can't be overcome.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> In reply to John:
> 
> Thanks for your response. The Romans 8 part is comforting. The rest is somewhat confusing. (I'm not that bright.)
> ...


No. It is not all we need. We also need each other. We need the Body of Christ to which Christ gave teachers for the building up of the Church.


> Why did not God CLEARLY say either 1) you shall baptize infants or 2) you shall NOT baptize infants?


There are many issues He could have chosen to be more explicit on. Frankly, while I consider baptism really important there are other doctrines, more fundamental, that God could have been more explicit about that would have prevented some very serious heresies. He could have just come out and said "I am one God in Three Persons" for one thing...


> Question 2:
> 
> Is the fact that God did NOT say, "you shall baptize infants" mean you should not. End of discussion?


No. Silence on all subjects is insufficient. If paedo-baptists agreed with this then obviously the discussion would end.



> Question 3:
> 
> Is this purely an issue of Christian liberty, and that any debate runs the risk of hurting a weaker brother?


No. It is an issue of a command of God. If God commands us to baptize only adults then we have not the liberty to choose who we baptize. Just as we don't have the liberty to disobey God in other areas.


> I suspect someone with a double-digit IQ should be able to figure this one out. This should not require a synod of Phds.


I don't mean to be funny but a 100 IQ is considered average intelligence - hence even a triple digit IQ is average. Mentally retarded people have double-digit IQ's. 

There is a reason why God gave us teachers and elders in the Church. A man who can rightly divine the truth and is apt to teach ought not be a simpleton.



> Question 4:
> 
> What part of the puzzle are we missing? It can not be this difficult.


We're missing perfection. Yes, unfortunately, sin makes this very difficult but Christ is with us and will never let His Church fail. Take heart brother!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> [If they could do it in Dordt and Westminster, before there were 747's and Lincolns, when mustangs were wild horses instead of fast and fancy cars that can cover in one hour what used to take days, then why can't we do it today? If you ask me, the need is even greater in our day, but so are the logistics much more favourable. The greater concern is not whether we can afford to have men do this, but whether we have men to do this. Do they have the heart for it? If they do, then the rest is not a problem that can't be overcome.


I don't mean to sound cynical but I think the advent of modern technology actually makes consensus more difficult rather than less.

The speed and ease at which information travels; the number of internet theologians; the ability to blog and poison the well with a large audience. There are many disadvantages. Look at the speed at which the whole "Federal Vision" thing has captivated a large number of people. On the one hand there are poorly educated easily captivated by a potentially false doctrine. On the other hand, are Churchmen, and others, who lob the word "heresy" with ease as if they have the authority of a Synod.

Anyhow, your idea has merit in my mind but, as much as a technophile as I am, the Internet paradoxically hinders the unity much of the time.

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Anyhow, your idea has merit in my mind but, as much as a technophile as I am, the Internet paradoxically hinders the unity much of the time.
> [Edited on 12-31-2005 by SemperFideles]



Yep, the inability to share the communion table and face-to-face prayer are two of the largest hinderances we face in true Christian fellowship.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> In reply to John:
> 
> Thanks for your response. The Romans 8 part is comforting. The rest is somewhat confusing. (I'm not that bright.)
> ...


I don't think that it is first of all a baptism issue. I think the problem lies elsewhere, but that baptism is used to foster it. But, like you said, that's my opinion. 

God is not the one making the mistake here: we are. I don't believe that God was not thorough in what He revealed to us. He gave us what we needed, and held back what would be wrong for us to know, ( whether it was too much for us or not suited to our nature, He knows. ) So as far as the baptism issue is concerned, it is we who have things wrong here, not God. He did not omit a detail that we would need.

It has very little, if anything to do with personal IQs. In the Word God addresses the foolish for not being wise, and addresses the wise for being obedient. How smart you are is not at issue here. 



> Question 2:
> 
> Is the fact that God did NOT say, "you shall baptize infants" mean you should not. End of discussion?


If this one view, taken on Baptism, the Psalms, and other things, holds, then yes, you are right in this. It is one argument that is mixed in with some things, and passed over in other things. The Baptist will use this line of thinking on Baptism, but Presbyterians use the same line on other things. 

I would suggest a different line of thinking, however. You don't find such a statement in the Bible, and yet you find that you have to draw the conclusion yourself also to negate the command: it is not there either. The Presbyterians see the negation as a foreign intrusion of idea, while the Baptists find the postive as a foreign intrusion. My suggestion to such a synod would be that we all must leave that line of thinking, and respect the fact that what God did say was enough for us, that it is we who are placing the emphases in the wrong place, and that God did not omit an important detail. I would say that the fault lies with us, not God: we must correct that fault. 



> Question 3:
> 
> Is this purely an issue of Christian liberty, and that any debate runs the risk of hurting a weaker brother?
> 
> I suspect someone with a double-digit IQ should be able to figure this one out. This should not require a synod of Phds.


This runs the risk also of hurting stronger brothers as well. No, I do not believe that it is a matter of Christian liberty. When brothers cannot worship together because they cannot agree on Scripture, and the difference causes a separation that cannot be healed, then it is not a matter of liberty. We are actually taking liberties that God did not intend for us to take. He did not make a clear direct statement one way or the other. That does not mean that it is not clear. It could also mean that it is so clear by itself that it is not necessary to say it. If this is the case, it may be that a stronger brother who has built and depended a lot on what he believes to be an obvious conclusion ( which represents both sides ), then he will have that structure of thought brought down around him. The hurt does not come with that happening, but with whether or not he is willing to have something like that happen for his own good. If he is not, then he will be hurt; if he is, the hurt will be mollified by his great delight in having been taught truly. 

So if I am going to the table to discuss these things, I must be willing for that. That would be my business there. Not only to present the best case I can for what I believe, but even more so to be prepared spiritually to recognize and respect the truth, even against my own views. My presuppositions will be what I am there to sacrifice for the sake of truth; my spiritual gifts will be what what I am there to offer for the benefit of others. 

Again, to answer the last part of Q. 3, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If that were the case, then the kingdom of God would belong to the intelligent by worldly standards. But it doesn't. Nor does God divide the foolish from the wise by that standard, I believe. 



> Question 4:
> 
> What part of the puzzle are we missing? It can not be this difficult.


Yes it is this difficult. I'm not suggesting that we are making a simple mistake. I'm not suggesting that men like Calvin or Spurgeon were terribly simple-minded on the matter. It is difficult. What I am suggesting is that we are going about it all the wrong way to resolve it, though. I would suggest that we began off the right foot, but lost it somewhere along the line. I'm not sure yet where, or how. All I know is that the Bible did not make a mistake, and that treating the Bible as if it did, ( not deliberately, but by cultural accident ) is not the right approach. We have a mentally adopted approach that has faults with it, and we should first appreciate that, and then correct it. 

There was a unity in times past that we have lost, on a matter over which, it is alleged, the Bible is not clear. Here, then, are two distinct possibilities that the Bible clearly has set before us as our mutual aim: follow the Word; and make unity a goal. The latter can take on two aims at the same time: recapture past unity; and aim for more unity. 

Now, may I return a question, not so much for answering, but for thought: Why has mode of baptism become such an issue that it separates brothers? Not the 'what' of it, but the 'why'.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 2, 2006)

I would like to thank John and Rich for responding to my questions.

P.S. Rich, I am not sure how to address a Lt. Colonel. If I did so improperly, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> I would like to thank John and Rich for responding to my questions.
> 
> P.S. Rich, I am not sure how to address a Lt. Colonel. If I did so improperly, please accept my apologies.


Rich is fine. That's what my Mom calls me.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 3, 2006)

I would like to answer one objection separately. The objection has been raised that such a synod would create more dissension than unity. I have four responses to that. 

1. A true synod wold consist of ordained men, approved and selected to administer the Word, preaching and the sacraments, and to rule and govern the church. Such men would not, or should not, have their own interests at the fore, nor those of their denomination. They should have the interests of the entire church at heart. They will not fear that the truth would fall, for it could not; and there is no fear of losing error either, as that would be great gain. Such a synod's interest is in the truth, guided by the Spirit of truth.

2. People should not fear the intervention of the Spirit, but hope for it. And the Spirit works through the system of government the Word itself teaches and ordains. To refuse such a synod is to refuse the Spirit's leading, just as to hold a synod to preserve and protect denominational interests at the cost of Biblical unity is contrary to the teaching on Church government. Nothing should be on the table for compromise, for that betrays a lack of faith int he unity of truth. God is God of truth; the Spirit is the Spirit of truth; and the Son is the way, the truth, and the life. If this is so for us individually, it is even more so for us corporately as a holy Church, or as a church seeking holiness. 

3. Dissensions are growing now because of a lack of overall leadership. Whatever authority is rejected is immediately replaced by another authority, and so another denomination is born. And if such dissensions are growing anyways, what could be the harm in trying to break that trend? Could anyone say that there would be more schisms? But certainly it is clear that not trying will not gain unity either, and can more easily be said to be the cause of schisms than attempts to unify: not trying is worse than trying. Leaving things as they are is no solution, for we are in a sorry state that way. 

So what if we fail a few times. We pick up our socks and try again. But the Church is already one. So we should begin to believe in that, and work our errors out of ourselves together. 

4. We only need to look to Antioch, Syria to see what such a synod could do, what we could hope for, without which we would not have such hope. There was a great joy, and they were greatly consoled, and then there were a great many added to the church. In other words, the Spirit was at work with a mighty hand. 


Again I'll say it: we need to put our faith on the line, trusting in the Spirit to lead us. Our presuppositions have to be expendable as a price to gain the truth and unity that the Church really dwells in. Its not that we have such confidence in our own theologies, but that we have such trust in the Spirit's theology, and His leading, and in the sufficiency of the Word. Its going to be costly, but the gain will be much, much more, making what we lose a joy to us. 

Even if we don't have a synod, we can at least make that same unity our own aim in our conversations.


----------

