# For non-baptists on this board...



## Learner (Sep 27, 2004)

... specifically those who used to be Baptists . ---- When you became Presbyterian (or whatever ) were you sprinkled ? Do you consider your baptism as a Baptist before , to be invalid ? If you consider it to have been invalid and no true baptism then why haven't you as an adult been sprinkled ?

Something else : I have asked this before on another thread ; have you non-Baptists ever seen an immersion baptism of an adult in your Presbyterian ( and other reformed) churches ? I do not mean a sprinkling or christening .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2004)

1) NO
2) NO


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 27, 2004)

[quote:40c6995166="Learner"]... specifically those who used to be Baptists . ---- When you became Presbyterian (or whatever ) were you sprinkled ? Do you consider your baptism as a Baptist before , to be invalid ? If you consider it to have been invalid and no true baptism then why haven't you as an adult been sprinkled ?
[/quote:40c6995166]

I was never a Baptist, but the WCF is pretty clear on this issue.

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. " (XXVIII:3). Presbyterians consider baptism by immersion to be valid, but irregular. Presbyterian should and do recognize Baptist baptism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2004)

No and No...Presbyterians are more "c"atholic with regard to the efficacy of other Baptisms. It is a good question to ask, as it was the first thing I aksed when I sought membership in the OPC.


----------



## Learner (Sep 27, 2004)

Scott , I asked 4 questions .


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2004)

3) I consider my baptism valid but would be sprinkled if they asked me to.
4)no


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2004)

Actually, I count three. The 4th question was based upon a yes answer. Whateverthecase, add another 'no' to the tally.


----------



## Learner (Sep 27, 2004)

So let me be clear . You non-Baptists have never witnessed an immersion baptism of a believer at your non-baptists churches . Is that right ? Do you think that should be allowed ?

Have any of you --( N-B's ) ever sought the baptism of a child of unregenerate parents ?

That's 3 questions .


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 27, 2004)

[quote:0800965e20="Learner"]So let me be clear . You non-Baptists have never witnessed an immersion baptism of a believer at your non-baptists churches . Is that right ? Do you think that should be allowed ?

Have any of you --( N-B's ) ever sought the baptism of a child of unregenerate parents ?

That's 3 questions .[/quote:0800965e20]

Answers:

1. I have witnessed an immersion in a PCA church
2. I think its propriety depends on the circumstances, although for the most part I would consider it unnecessary and potentially harmful (placing undue emphasis on the mode)
3. No, I have not (and never would) seek the baptism of a child of BOTH unregenerate parents.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 27, 2004)

[quote:6bf6d563e5="Learner"]So let me be clear . You non-Baptists have never witnessed an immersion baptism of a believer at your non-baptists churches . Is that right ? Do you think that should be allowed ?[/quote:6bf6d563e5]

Allowed by whom? Presumably the elders (leaders) are committed to some confessional position that speaks to the mode of baptism. Unless a body changed its confession to say that immersion was not irregular, there would be no reason to permit such a practice.

[quote:6bf6d563e5]

Have any of you --( N-B's ) ever sought the baptism of a child of unregenerate parents ?

That's 3 questions .[/quote:6bf6d563e5]

No. Why would one do that?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2004)

Ditto Ditto


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 27, 2004)

to what has basically been said so far. The sacrament of baptism is an ordinance of the Church, so simply put, unless our church's GA has officially declared another church to be apostate and thus a false church, we consider baptism from that church to be valid.

Furthermore, while, as the WCF states, we don't consider immersion to be [i:4f6f938598]necessary[/i:4f6f938598] for a true baptism, we don't consider it to be an [i:4f6f938598]inadequate[/i:4f6f938598] mode, either. Thus, because of that fact combined with the fact that true baptism is only to be administered to a person once, not only would I not request to be re-baptized after my A/G baptism, but would refuse such repitition (unless the church had been declared apostate by my denomination), since, as Fred pointed out, such an emphasis is unbiblical and thus even harmful.

I can't speak with regard to the witness, since I haven't yet been a regular attender of a paedobaptist church.

And we would absolutely never seek the baptism of a child with two presumably unregenerate parents, since the whole reason for their baptism rests on their presumed invisible covenant status based on their known visible covenant status, which is based on the presumed elect state of at least one of their parents.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 27, 2004)

[quote:a16eea03ee]... specifically those who used to be Baptists . ---- When you became Presbyterian (or whatever ) were you sprinkled ? Do you consider your baptism as a Baptist before , to be invalid ? If you consider it to have been invalid and no true baptism then why haven't you as an adult been sprinkled ?

Something else : I have asked this before on another thread ; have you non-Baptists ever seen an immersion baptism of an adult in your Presbyterian ( and other reformed) churches ? I do not mean a sprinkling or christening .[/quote:a16eea03ee]

1) I was not rebaptized at all. My initial baptism was immersion.

2) Baptist baptism is just as valid as Presbyterian. Nobody ever needs to be rebaptized unless they were baptized by a false church.

3) I have never seen immersion in a Presbyterian church, be it of infants or adults.

[quote:a16eea03ee]So let me be clear . You non-Baptists have never witnessed an immersion baptism of a believer at your non-baptists churches . Is that right ? Do you think that should be allowed ? 

Have any of you --( N-B's ) ever sought the baptism of a child of unregenerate parents ?[/quote:a16eea03ee]

1) I think most Reformed churches will allow baptism by immersion if the candidate insists upon it, since we typically believe that immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are all valid modes of baptism. But the common practice is sprinkling or pouring, so immersion is quite rare.

2) I don"(tm)t understand your second question. Why would we ever seek the baptism of a child of unregenerate parents? If we are going to do that, we might as well go knocking door to door asking if we can baptize the neighbors"(tm) children.


----------



## Learner (Sep 28, 2004)

If there was one regenerate parent who wanted their child christened , would that be a case where the child's "baptism " would be sought ?

Looking at church history I would have to say that the reformed churches did indeed actively seek out children to be "baptized " . This happened at the rise of the Anabaptists and continued to at least the time of the American Revolution . So , for roughly half of the time period in the first quarter of the 16th century until the present --- about half of the time "seeking infant candidates " was the common practice .

So there has been a change in the non-baptist camp about that . Also , the reasons for infant " baptism " have varied widely over the last nearly 500 years . Uniformity has been remarkably absent .

Pardon the tedious quotation marks . As you know, I do not , as a Baptist, regard a baby unconscious of the rite taking place , as a legitimate baptism . So when one who was christened as an infant, comes to saving union with Christ in more mature years , it is not a rebaptism , but in-fact their first true baptism . We baptists are not as open-minded as you non-baptists are regarding that . I consider our stance to be the biblical position of course .

And concerning the Westminster folks on the subject of baptism --- as you know , no Baptist was present to contribute contrary views . Yet there was considerable heat generated over the mode that Scripture called for . I do not have the quote with me . Maybe one of you can produce it before my tomorrow --- But initially it was nearly a 50%-50% break in concensus over the proper mode .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 28, 2004)

Tim asks:
If there was one regenerate parent who wanted their child christened , would that be a case where the child's "baptism " would be sought ? 

Yes. 1 Cor 7:14


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 28, 2004)

[quote:8aff6683cd]Maybe one of you can produce it before my tomorrow --- But initially it was nearly a 50%-50% break in concensus over the proper mode .[/quote:8aff6683cd]

I am unaware of this, but will check.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 28, 2004)

[quote:9ad3e2b433="Learner"]... specifically those who used to be Baptists . ---- When you became Presbyterian (or whatever ) were you sprinkled ? Do you consider your baptism as a Baptist before , to be invalid ? If you consider it to have been invalid and no true baptism then why haven't you as an adult been sprinkled ?

Something else : I have asked this before on another thread ; have you non-Baptists ever seen an immersion baptism of an adult in your Presbyterian ( and other reformed) churches ? I do not mean a sprinkling or christening .[/quote:9ad3e2b433]

No I was not sprinkled when I became Presbyterian. I consider my immersion(s!) acceptable. I have never seen a Presbyterian immersion before.


----------



## Learner (Sep 29, 2004)

This is from : " A History of the Baptists " , by John T. Christian . The book was published in 1922 . He was a professor of Church History . You can find it on the Reformed Reader website .

In chapter 18 he quotes Sir David Brewster : " In the Assembly of Divines , held at Westminster in 1643 , it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted : 25 voted for sprinkling , 24 for immersion ; and even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot , who had acquired great influence in that Assembly . Sprinkling is therefore the general practice of this country . Many Christians however , especially the Baptists , reject it . The Greek Church universally adheres to immersion . "


----------



## Learner (Sep 29, 2004)

In another excerpt from that same chapter the author says that the action of the Westminster Assembly was followed by acts of Parliment . Rev. J. F. Bliss summed them up as follows : " The original law of 1534 enforced immersion , and those who were not baptized were to be treated as outlaws . The law was passed when the Roman Catholic Church was abandoned and the present Established Church inaugurated in its stead . However , this law was replaced by an act of parliment 1644 , at least so much of the old law as enforced immersion , and they passed on an act enforcing sprinkling in its stead , and left the original penalty annexed to outlaws , being deprived of the inheritance of the state , the right of burial , and in short , of all of the rights to other sprinkled citizens of the realm ... After 1648 immersion was prohibited and for many years made penal . "


----------



## Learner (Sep 29, 2004)

Scott made reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14 in his claim that if a spouse was a believer , then , he or she could be a sponsor of the child in the family in the rite of baptism . Well , he didn't say all that . But Scott , does that pretty much sum up what you meant in your terse post ?

From the ESV Bible : " For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife , and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband . Otherwise your children would be unclean , but as it is , they are holy . "

According to that logic then an unbelieving spouse should also be baptized as well as the child .


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 29, 2004)

Some people do believe that, Tim. Greg Bahnsen suggested it in an article he wrote. But even if Presbyterians are inconsistent in not baptizing unbelieving spouses, that is no argument against infant baptism. It's simply an inconsistency in practice.


----------



## Learner (Sep 29, 2004)

In John Gill's treatment of the verse he ends by quoting Wolfgang Musculus ( 1497-1563) regarding the misuse of the text by paedobaptists. " Formerly I have abused this place [ verse] against the Anabaptists , thinking the meaning was , that the children were holy for the parent's faith ; which though true , the present place makes nothing for the purpose : and I hope , that , upon reading this , everyone that has abused it to such a purpose will make the like acknowledgment ; I am sure they ought . "


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 29, 2004)

Calvin writes:

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified. He obviates an objection, which might occasion anxiety to believers. The relationship of marriage is singularly close, so that the wife is the half of the man -- so that they two are one flesh -- (1 Corinthians 6:16) -- so that the husband is the head of the wife; (Ephesians 5:23 and she is her husband's partner in everything; hence it seems impossible that a believing husband should live with an ungodly wife, or the converse of this, without being polluted by so close a connection. Paul therefore declares here, that marriage is, nevertheless, sacred and pure, and that we must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate the husband. Let us, however, bear in mind, that he speaks here not of contracting marriages, but of maintaining those that have been already contracted; for where the matter under consideration is, whether one should marry an unbelieving wife, or whether one should marry an unbelieving husband, then that exhortation is in point --

Be not yoked with unbelievers, for there is no agreement between Christ and Belial. (2 Corinthians 6:14.)

But he that is already bound has no longer liberty of choice; hence the advice given is different.

While this sanctification is taken in various senses, I refer it simply to marriage, in this sense -- It might seem (judging from appearance) as if a believing wife contracted infection from an unbelieving husband, so as to make the connection unlawful; but it is otherwise, for the piety of the one has more effect in sanctifying marriage than the impiety of the other in polluting it. Hence a believer may, with a pure conscience, live with an unbeliever, for in respect of the use and intercourse of the marriage bed, and of life generally, he is sanctified, so as not to infect the believing party with his impurity. Meanwhile this sanctification is of no benefit to the unbelieving party; it only serves thus far, that the believing party is not contaminated by intercourse with him, and marriage itself is not profaned.

But from this a question arises -- "If the faith of a husband or wife who is a Christian sanctifies marriage, it follows that all marriages of ungodly persons are. impure, and differ nothing from fornication." I answer, that to the ungodly all things are impure, (Titus 1:15,) because they pollute by their impurity even the best and choicest of God's creatures. Hence it is that they pollute marriage itself, because they do not acknowledge God as its Author, and therefore they are not capable of true sanctification, and by an evil conscience abuse marriage. It is a mistake, however, to conclude from this that it differs nothing from fornication; for, however impure it is to them, it is nevertheless pure in itself, inasmuch as it is appointed by God, serves to maintain decency among men, and restrains irregular desires; and hence it is for these purposes approved by God, like other parts of political order. We must always, therefore, distinguish between the nature of a thing and the abuse of it.

Else were your children. It is an argument taken from the effect -- "If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also is holy. [b:26d3b84306]As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage from being pure."[/b:26d3b84306] Some grammarians explain this passage as referring to a civil sanctity, in respect of the children being reckoned legitimate, but in this respect the condition of unbelievers is in no degree worse. That exposition, therefore, cannot stand. Besides, it is certain that Paul designed here to remove scruples of conscience, lest any one should think (as I have said) that he had contracted defilement. The passage, then, is a remarkable one, and drawn from the depths of theology; for it teaches, that the children of the pious are set apart from others by a sort of exclusive privilege, so as to be reckoned holy in the Church.

But how will this statement correspond with what he teaches elsewhere -- that we are all by nature children of wrath; (Ephesians 2:3 or with the statement of David -- Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Psalms 51:7.) I answer, that there is a universal propagation of sin and damnation throughout the seed of Adam, and all, therefore, to a man, are included in this curse, whether they are the offspring of believers or of the ungodly; for it is not as regenerated by the Spirit, that believers beget children after the flesh. The natural condition, therefore, of all is alike, so that they are liable equally to sin and to eternal death. As to the Apostle's assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows from the blessing of the covenant, by the intervention of which the curse of nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God by grace. [b:26d3b84306]Hence Paul argues, in his Epistle to the Romans, (Romans 11:16,) that the whole of Abraham's posterity are holy, because God had made a covenant. of life with him -- If the root be holy, says he, then the branches are holy also.[/b:26d3b84306] And God calls all that were descended from Israel his sons' now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham 4 is communicated to us. But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind, so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign? If the Lord admits them into the Church by his word, why should we refuse them the sign? In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.

matthew henry writes:

2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. To the pure all things are pure, Tit. i. 15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God's appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments. It was no more displeasing to God for them to continue to live as they did before, with their unbelieving or heathen relation, than if they had become converts together. If one of the relatives had become holy, nothing of the duties or lawful comforts of the married state could defile them, and render them displeasing to God, though the other were a heathen. He is sanctified for the wife's sake. She is sanctified for the husband's sake. Both are one flesh. He is to be reputed clean who is one flesh with her that is holy, and vice versÃ¢: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (v. 14), [b:26d3b84306]that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa. vi. 13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle's vision, Acts x. 28. [/b:26d3b84306]This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem--within the holy enclosure. [b:26d3b84306]Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed. [/b:26d3b84306]"Continue therefore to live even with unbelieving relatives; for, if you are holy, the relation is so, the state is so, you may make a holy use even of an unbelieving relative, in conjugal duties, and your seed will be holy too." What a comfort is this, where both relatives are believers! (2.) Another reason is that God hath called Christians to peace, v. 15. The Christian religion obliges us to act peaceably in all relations, natural and civil. We are bound, as much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all men (Rom. xii. 18), and therefore surely to promote the peace and comfort of our nearest relatives, those with whom we are one flesh, nay, though they should be infidels. Note, It should be the labour and study of those who are married to make each other as easy and happy as possible. (3.) A third reason is that it is possible for the believing relative to be an instrument of the other's salvation (v. 16): What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Note, It is the plain duty of those in so near a relation to seek the salvation of those to whom they are related. "Do not separate. There is other duty now called for. The conjugal relation calls for the most close and endeared affection; it is a contract for life. And should a Christian desert a mate, when an opportunity offers to give the most glorious proof of love? Stay, and labour heartily for the conversion of thy relative. Endeavour to save a soul. Who knows but this may be the event? It is not impossible. And, though there be no great probability, saving a soul is so good and glorious a service that the bare possibility should put one on exerting one's self." Note, Mere possibility of success should be a sufficient motive with us to use our diligent endeavours for saving the souls of our relations. "What know I but I may save his soul? should move me to attempt it."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2004)

[quote:1a7bc80955]This is from : " A History of the Baptists " , by John T. Christian . The book was published in 1922 . He was a professor of Church History . You can find it on the Reformed Reader website . 

In chapter 18 he quotes Sir David Brewster : " In the Assembly of Divines , held at Westminster in 1643 , it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted : 25 voted for sprinkling , 24 for immersion ; and even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot , who had acquired great influence in that Assembly . Sprinkling is therefore the general practice of this country . Many Christians however , especially the Baptists , reject it . The Greek Church universally adheres to immersion . "[/quote:1a7bc80955]

It is lopsided. I found the reference.

John Lightfoot (and Erastian) kept copious notes of the assembly.

"keenly debated" - not really. Lightfoot records that the Directory for Public worship makes mention of this and they decided whether or not to enter the information into the directory ONLY (not the Confession or the catechisms). Lightfoot says, "it was thought fit and most safe to let it alone." On August 7 they voted, and it was a split: 24 said include it, 25 said not to. (And this was after a recounted vote). The reason it was a split was not because of its importance, but because the assmebly did not care one way or the other. Lightfoot says, "and when we were done, we concluded nothing in it."

Lightfoot also notes in this place on his commentaries on this subject: 
"the Hebrew host "baptized into Moses" were not immersed - quoting John Arrowsmith."

"The Israelties were baptized, both adults and infants, for the Apsotle declares it. They were not immersed, a fact which Moses and others inspired writers testify. The Egyptians who pursued them were immersed. The Israelites had baptism without immersion, and the Egyptians immersion without baptism. The batpsim of Israelties was salvation, and the immersion of Egyptians drowning. (Marmichael's exposition of 1 Cor. 10:1-5)."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2004)

[quote:dd584c1e82]In John Gill's treatment of the verse he ends by quoting Wolfgang Musculus ( 1497-1563) regarding the misuse of the text by paedobaptists. " Formerly I have abused this place [ verse] against the Anabaptists , thinking the meaning was , that the children were holy for the parent's faith ; [u:dd584c1e82][b:dd584c1e82]which though true , the present place makes nothing for the purpose[/b:dd584c1e82][/u:dd584c1e82] : and I hope , that , upon reading this , everyone that has abused it to such a purpose will make the like acknowledgment ; I am sure they ought . "[/quote:dd584c1e82]

Cany you say "contradicting oneself?"

Gill is emasculating the context.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:517c301042="Learner"] If there was one regenerate parent who wanted their child christened , would that be a case where the child's "baptism " would be sought ? [/quote:517c301042]

Just to clarify the discussin a little, Presbyterians/Reformed do not "christen" babies. We baptise them. "Christening" is a Roman Catholic practice, not presbyterian.


----------



## Learner (Sep 30, 2004)

Which though true , the present place makes nothing for the purpose.

That was not Gill being quoted , but W. Musculus . Musculus believed in infant baptism . Though being in favor of the practice , he did not believe the text of 1 Corinthians 7 :14 was a legitimate defence , it was not warranted . Though he believed that children were made holy by a parent's faith , that verse did not past muster to establish that conviction .


----------



## Learner (Sep 30, 2004)

Patrick , the term christen means : to administer baptism to . It is not only a Roman Catholic practice . The Church of England has used it for centuries and the Methodists , among others . Nevertheless , since it may carry a Roman Catholic connotation , I will no longer use the expression .


----------



## Learner (Sep 30, 2004)

*Keenly Debated ? Yes , it was indeed .*

A lopsided quote Matt ? No . Not by a longshot . What do these expressions mean ? " great heat " , " long dispute " . You are quick to say things , but give ear . I'll be quoting Lightfoot at length.

Then we fell into the work of the day , which was about baptizing " of the child , whether to dip him or to sprinkle . " And this was the proposition , " It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child , " had been canvassed before our adjourning , and was ready now to vote ; but I spoke against it , as being very unfit to vote ; that it is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it . Whereupon it was fallen upon , a large and long discourse , to prove [ missing words] to be dipping overhead . Which I answered at large . After a long dispute it was at last put to the question , whether the Directory should run thus , " The minister shall take water , and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child ; " and it was voted so indifferently , that we were glad to count names twice ; for so many were so unwilling to have dipping included that the votes came as an equality within one ; for the one side were twenty four , the other 25 , the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it ; and there grew a great heat upon it , and when we had done all , we concluded upon nothing in it but the business was recommitted .


----------



## Learner (Sep 30, 2004)

Missing word only . From the Greek : tbilh


----------



## Learner (Oct 1, 2004)

Scott , I am still mulling over your Calvin and Henry quotes . But for now I'll relate the words of one of your favorite authors : Greg Welty . His booklet is named : " A Critical Examination of Infant Baptism " . And this portion deals with the 1 Corinthian 7:14 passage .

The paedobaptist interpretation of this text is a classic example of what was previously identified as " Judaizing " the New Testament . That is , distinctions peculiar to the Old Testament , such as " external " or " covenantal " holiness , are read into New Testament texts . Paedobaptists forget that the entire concept of " covenantal " holiness has been abolished in the NT . In Acts 10:28 , Peter informed Cornelius' household that " You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him . But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure [ koinon] or unclean [ akatharton ] . " In the context it is obvious that Peter is speaking about external , covenantal holiness , based upon external membership in the covenant community . Thus the very thing which God commanded Peter never to do ( call men unclean because of their birth outside the covenant community ) , paedobaptists do with respect to the children of non-Christians ( i.e. call them unclean ) . They forget that such distinctions have been abolished in the New Covenant era , as God taught Peter .


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2004)

tim,

You basically requoted what i quoted.

Are you listening to Lightfoot or not. 3 days of debate over 8 years is nothing. His point, and the expression that the Minutes give is exactly what I did quote:

"we concluded upon nothing in it but the business was recommitted ."

The reason they did not hash it out was because it was not important to them at the time. Have you read any first hand accounts of the Assembly at all? You are quoting Lightfoot (a little) but are quoting Lightfoot, or someone else's quote of Lightfoot? And those who voted not to sprinkle, can you tell us if they were Presbyterians, Erastians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, etc? Do you understand the context of the Assembly at this point in theological history or are you pulling "proof texts" to prove...............what are you trying to prove?? uzzled:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2004)

[quote:f32e708687]Paedobaptists forget that the entire concept of " covenantal " holiness has been abolished in the NT . [/quote:f32e708687]

This is one of most ridiculous statements he makes in that work.

Even from a NT vantage point for the church, the concept of covenantal holiness is critical to the Christ/church relationship. How he can even ATTEMPT to say this denies most of the biblical restoration passages of the OT, and the continued priestly covenantal work of Christ for the church in the NT.


ESV Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the [b:f32e708687]covenant[/b:f32e708687], which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

ESV Mark 14:24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the [b:f32e708687]covenant[/b:f32e708687], which is poured out for many.

ESV Luke 1:72 to show the mercy [u:f32e708687]promised to our fathers and to remember his [b:f32e708687]holy covenant[/b:f32e708687],[/u:f32e708687]

ESV Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new [b:f32e708687]covenant [/b:f32e708687]in my blood.

ESV Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the [b:f32e708687]covenant [/b:f32e708687]that God made [b:f32e708687]with your fathers[/b:f32e708687], saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'

ESV Romans 11:27 "and this will be my [b:f32e708687]covenant [/b:f32e708687]with them when I [b:f32e708687]take away their sins[/b:f32e708687]."

ESV 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new [b:f32e708687]covenant [/b:f32e708687]in my blood. [b:f32e708687]Do this[/b:f32e708687], as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

ESV 2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new [b:f32e708687]covenant[/b:f32e708687], not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the [b:f32e708687]Spirit gives life[/b:f32e708687].

ESV Ephesians 2:12 remember that [b:f32e708687]you [/b:f32e708687]were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the [b:f32e708687]covenants of promise[/b:f32e708687], having no hope and without God in the world.

ESV Hebrews 7:22 This makes Jesus the [b:f32e708687]guarantor [/b:f32e708687]of a better [b:f32e708687]covenant[/b:f32e708687].

ESV Hebrews 10:16 "This is the [b:f32e708687]covenant [/b:f32e708687]that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their [b:f32e708687]hearts[/b:f32e708687], and write them on their [b:f32e708687]minds[/b:f32e708687],"

ESV Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new [b:f32e708687]covenant[/b:f32e708687], and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

ESV Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the [b:f32e708687]eternal covenant,[/b:f32e708687]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 1, 2004)

Gentleman,
Make your final statements as I will lock this thread at the end of the day.


----------



## Learner (Oct 1, 2004)

Matt , either you are not reading my posts carefully or ... something else .You make no acknowledement of charging me falsely . Take a gander at my posts and see where your false charges are just that .


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2004)

Tim,

Why do I need to charge you? I qwas simply making a statement about Welty's paper (which I have read a few times). The paper is biblically inconsistent, and his charges against the paedo camp are not very good. He says most of his work is taken from Jeweett. Jewett's book is very "one eyed" and lopsided. He takes the conversation so far away from the center of debate, one wonders why he wrote it. so Welty makes statements that follow Jewett who did not debate the real issue. 

I was just clarifying that Welty's argument is nonsensical. I was not making any accusations or charges against you at all.


----------

