# Jesus' Sermon on the Mount - Who was He Speaking to?



## ChristopherPaul

*Jesus\' Sermon on the Mount - Who was He Speaking to?*

At His sermon on the mount, specifically in Matthew 6, Jesus expounded upon the law, issued blessings to those who were meek and humble and those who are persecuted for their faith, He blessed those who prayed unlike the hypocrites, who fasted in secret, who stored treasures in heaven, etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately can or should we conclude that he was speaking to His Church?



> 6:3-4 "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.



If a kind and humble atheist gave to the poor in secret, will God the Father reward him?



> 6:5 - "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."



Will God reward the devout Jew (who does not believe Jesus is the Christ) who prays in secret as Jesus instructed?



> 6:16-18 - "Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.



Will God reward a humble Muslim who fasts in this way?

Moving on, what about worrying? 



> 6:25-34 - "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? "And why are you worried about clothing ? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' "For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.



God's elect should certainly not need to worry because they seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, but what about the sons of disobedience?








Now for the big question: * Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?*

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## kceaster

*Chris...*

One of the phrases Jesus keeps using is, "Your Father." In all of this sermon, He's telling us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like and what our Father expects of us and will do for us. To me, these are all sayings appropriate to any who are a part of the kingdom.

Therefore, if there is a promise that God will be a God to us and to our children, then I do not see any reason to believe that Jesus speaks to any here but who are God's children.

If He tells us not to worry, then we should by all means form the lives of our children around the precious promises that He will keep them as well. Just about all of Christendom teaches their children these principles from the sermon on the mount. So there should be no reason to believe that God is the Father of our children only if they reach some age and have given a full and complete confession of faith.

Everyone teaches their kids to "believe" and "do" all of the things in this sermon. Jesus says that whoever does these things, the will of His Father, is a part of His family and can call God, Father.

It is only in our trying to determine who is and who is not saved that clouds this interpretation. We should be able to say that all who believe and do what Jesus says here, are in fact, children of God. This does not mean that they are saved. It merely means that they are visually a part of His family.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

He is addressing the Kingdom of God, which is:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Even more specific:

Matthew 5:1-2 Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His *disciples * came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught *them*, saying..."

No doubt many heard, but the teaching was directed from the Rabbi to his disciples. He did not stand on a rock to address the multitudes, instead, he went up a mountian (a difficult place for all to follow) and then sat down (to sit with "them").


----------



## Saiph

> No doubt many heard, but the teaching was directed from the Rabbi to his disciples.



Exactly. And children of believers are disciples.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> He is addressing the Kingdom of God, which is:
> 
> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.



Key here is that he is addressing the visible Church here as well.

Christ's teaching here, as elsewhere, is oft as much a repudiation of the faulty teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees and the fences that had put around the Word, as much as teaching His Church the true meaning and requirements of the Law. Elsewhere He repeatedly corrects "...you have heard it said..." errors in direct contrast to those who had corrupted God's Word. Notice at the end of the Sermon:



> (Matthew 7:28-29) And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.



When scribes taught, they would say "Rabbi Gamaliel says..." and spoke on the authority of their Rabbinical school. Christ spoke on His own authority and was often challenged on this point because it was so out of step with the way Rabbis taught at the time.

So the sermon is to all who are listening but I think it goes without saying that the only hearers that could be blessed are those who are Christ's. The bar for true righteousness is just too high for a mere civic virtue to receive such blessings.


----------



## Steve Owen

Christopher asked


> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?



Not unless they believe.


----------



## BrianBowman

What about in the interval of time, while they are still children, "until" they believe Martin?


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Christopher asked
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless they believe.
Click to expand...


You might be able to claim this on paper (or on the computer screen), but you can't really apply this in practice, can you? If that is the case, we cannot preach anything but the evangel to anyone who has not yet confessed faith in Christ.

Moreover, we teach our children to do these things from the sermon on the mount and we expect them to obey it. And some of them bear fruit because of this teaching. We tell them to believe it, and they are obedient to us. But if they walk away, they haven't really believed. So now we are in a real predicament in our thinking. How have these blessings been shown, but no real belief?

You are left with the only alternative that you believe that God bestows blessings because we have done our part. A child is a child of his own making because he has believed and his reward is blessing.

But isn't this backwards from the rest of Scripture? Aren't we blessed first? Aren't we promised first? Aren't we made children first, before we recognized as children? You're expecting the impossible. Not only that, but you're suggesting that it is because of our own will that we are blessed, we must believe first, right?

Rather, aren't we blessed before being born? If we are born of the Spirit, does not this happen prior to our belief? If anything, we are loved before we love, are we not?

To say that what the sermon on the mount teaches is only for those who believe, in other words, a byproduct for those who believe, renders the promise of God as merited by those who believe. This is backwards from God's perspective.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. This is blessing before belief. And yet, you seem to see it the otherway around...there is belief before blessing.

I find this not only contrary to my own experience, but also contrary to the Scriptures. They are clear. The promises come before the blessing, and the blessing comes before belief. Otherwise, we are not chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world, but chosen in Him as soon as we believe in Him.

I am not discounting the fact that we are given faith to believe before we believe. But this faith is a free gift. It was given before anything was done. Therefore, the promises of God are given as a blessing before faith, not after. If that is the case, God's promises are divided into two classes, those that are salvific in nature, and those that are given after salvation is accomplished. But there is no such division in Scripture. All of the promises of God are in Christ, and in Him, yea and Amen. Therefore, the promises of God precede faith and salvation.

You may argue that God promises something that He doesn't intend to make good on. But really, who are we to say this to God. His purposes and judgment are altogether true and good. Just because we don't understand how it works, does not mean that children are excluded from the promises and blessings of God until they profess faith.

I don't know about you, but God certainly blessed me with true spiritual blessings before I really believed. I grew up in a Christian home. God put me in that home. It certainly was a blessing that He didn't wait for me to believe in order to make it come to pass.

He was taking care of me, too, long before I knew Him or believed in Christ. He spared my life at birth, when I really should have died. And if we recall Psalm 139, we know that God's grace was on us even before one of our days came into being. Does God plan the steps, both of the righteous and unrighteous? You better believe it. Therefore, whatever God promises to those who believe, is bestowed long before they ever believe.

Call it common grace or whatever, there are promises of God we may realize before we truly believe. This is why all are without excuse, for God's ways and power and Godhood are clearly known to His creatures.

So, you can't really mean to discount all that God does in a person prior to a profession of belief. Again, you may suggest it in this forum, but in practice, you simply can't live that way.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The Sermon on the Mount is the "par excellance" sermon on the exposition of the Law. No doubt, dittoing KC, the Law is written on every heart, and is bound to be obyed by all (Rom. 1-2). Otherwise, the warnings to those who do not keep the Law becomes meaningless, as an example. The Gentiles even became a law unto themselves in this way. So Christ's sermon leaves no one unscathed.

Christopher asked, "Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?"

I would ask the question this way:

_"Do any of these promises, *curses*, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?"_

The answer to this is a resounding YES, especially if they have been ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven (which belongs to them) as covenant members.


----------



## Steve Owen

Kevin wrote:-


> So, you can't really mean to discount all that God does in a person prior to a profession of belief.



I do not do so. God says, *'I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.'* I clearly see the operation of God in my life before I believed.

I was answering Christopher's question. The 'kind and humble atheist' cannot count upon the blessing of God, since neither his kindness nor humility will stand before the searching eye of a thrice holy God; they are as filthy rags. He must be justified by faith or not at all.

And that is the case whether or not the atheist's parents are believers (Ezek 18 ).

Martin


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*

Children of believers are not atheists. I'm not sure why you mentioned this. The question is, to whom is Jesus speaking? You claim that it is only one who has professed faith in Christ. And we would not disagree with you. However, in practice, everyone in the world is taught the sermon on the mount as something they should heed and do. Our children are taught from a very young age.

We contend that the promises and blessing, and as Matthew has also added, cursing, is to those who heed the teaching of the Lord and those who do not. Jesus was speaking just as much to those who were of the faith, as against those who were not.

So, the question remains for you. Do you believe in both theory and practice that the sermon on the mount is only for those who have professed faith? Or, is it also for their children?

If you do not believe we should teach our kids all the principles of the sermon on the mount, and further assure them of God's blessing when they heed it, then every Sunday School in the world has been completely conflicting and confounding to the least of these. I cannot remember a time when I did not know about the beatitudes or seeking first the kingdom. If this is only for believers, then the Bible must err in saying that God can be "tasted" to see that He is good, since we know that there are those who have tasted and have turned their backs.

You really can't have it both ways. It is inconsistent and places focus on what we do instead of what God has promised.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Kevin,


> Children of believers are not atheists. I'm not sure why you mentioned this.


I mentioned it because it was mentioned in Christophers original post. However, I did not say that children of believers were all atheists; that would be a strange view to take. But it is no less strange to suppose that the children of believers cannot be atheists. Is that your view?

You continue


> If you do not believe we should teach our kids all the principles of the sermon on the mount, and further assure them of God's blessing when they heed it, then every Sunday School in the world has been completely conflicting and confounding to the least of these. I cannot remember a time when I did not know about the beatitudes or seeking first the kingdom.


Doubtless it is a good thing for all people, Christian or not, to be humble, merciful, peacemakers etc. But if anyone supposes that this will _ipso facto_ make them right with God then he has believed a lie. You have touched here on what I see as the deadly danger of junior Sunday Schools- that they encourage those who attend to think of themselves as Christians when there is not the slightest reason for them to suppose any such thing. *'They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, "Peace, peace!" When there is no peace"* (Jer 6:14 ).

Like you, I grew up knowing various parts of the Bible, including the Sermon on the Mount, and I formed the impression that because I was British, because I was baptized, because my parents were vaguely Christian, therefore I was a Christian so long as I tried to be generally kind to others. No one ever confronted me with with original sin, and naturally I watered down in my own mind the requirements of the Bible to suit my own rather low level of righteousness, telling myself that fornication was not actually adultery, so it was really not too bad, and so forth. *I was a sinner, on my way to hell, and nobody told me! Everybody told me that I was a Christian.* Even the Evangelicals I met told me that Jesus loved me, so that was alright, wasn't it? Nobody preached the law to me to drive me to Christ; if they preached it at all, it was to tell me to try a bit harder. Anyway, why should I come to Christ if I was a Christian already?

Mercy, humility and peace-making are not the requirements of Christianity (Matt 5:20 ). Rather they are the fruit of Christian conversion. Sunday Schools should be teaching children that they need to repent and trust Christ for salvation, not telling them that they can be saved by their works or that they are saved already and their works are in some way pleasing to God. That is the way to produce little Pharisees, who thank a God they do not know for a righteousness they do not possess (Luke 18:9ff). 

I have actually heard a Sunday School teacher say, "Now children, let's all say 'thank you' to Jesus that we're not like that nasty Pharisee!" 

There is quite a bit of good, evangelistic Sunday School material for children produced in Britain. The Metropolitan Tabernacle is well known for it. www.MetropolitanTabernacle.org

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Kevin,
> 
> I mentioned it because it was mentioned in Christophers original post. However, I did not say that children of believers were all atheists; that would be a strange view to take. But it is no less strange to suppose that the children of believers cannot be atheists. Is that your view?



My children aren't going to be atheists, not and live under my roof. I don't know why Christian parents would allow this. I find it highly unlikely that any children in Christian homes would grow up to be atheists. Backslidden, yes. But totally unbelieving of God, not likely.



> Doubtless it is a good thing for all people, Christian or not, to be humble, merciful, peacemakers etc. But if anyone supposes that this will _ipso facto_ make them right with God then he has believed a lie. You have touched here on what I see as the deadly danger of junior Sunday Schools- that they encourage those who attend to think of themselves as Christians when there is not the slightest reason for them to suppose any such thing. *'They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, "Peace, peace!" When there is no peace"* (Jer 6:14 ).



In other words, they are only Christians IF they have made a profession of faith? I don't know about you, but I am not going to trust in my own heart on this issue. Why else would we need assurance? Why would we need to be encouraged?

Another thing, Jesus could not have been talking to anyone here, yet. No one had professed faith in Christ here. Who was He talking to under your constraints? They had repented and been baptized, but not in the trinity and not professing faith in Christ the Son.

Further, what peace are you referring to? The "peace, peace" to which you are referring is speaking peace to those who have obstinately turned their backs on God. You're taking this quite out of context if you believe that we may not give our children assurance that God may indeed save them if it is His will to do so.



> Like you, I grew up knowing various parts of the Bible, including the Sermon on the Mount, and I formed the impression that because I was British, because I was baptized, because my parents were vaguely Christian, therefore I was a Christian so long as I tried to be generally kind to others. No one ever confronted me with with original sin, and naturally I watered down in my own mind the requirements of the Bible to suit my own rather low level of righteousness, telling myself that fornication was not actually adultery, so it was really not too bad, and so forth. *I was a sinner, on my way to hell, and nobody told me! Everybody told me that I was a Christian.* Even the Evangelicals I met told me that Jesus loved me, so that was alright, wasn't it? Nobody preached the law to me to drive me to Christ; if they preached it at all, it was to tell me to try a bit harder. Anyway, why should I come to Christ if I was a Christian already?



I am sorry that you were ever near the gospel but never heard it. We do not live that way, nor is your situation what we are espousing. There is great danger in doing what you saw. But that is not our practice. So, please don't project your experience on all Presbyterians. Your experience is not nearly always the case and should be seen as an abuse of doctrine and practice.



> Mercy, humility and peace-making are not the requirements of Christianity (Matt 5:20 ). Rather they are the fruit of Christian conversion. Sunday Schools should be teaching children that they need to repent and trust Christ for salvation, not telling them that they can be saved by their works or that they are saved already and their works are in some way pleasing to God. That is the way to produce little Pharisees, who thank a God they do not know for a righteousness they do not possess (Luke 18:9ff).



Then the Sunday Schools would be always trying to gain a confession and never preach anything else. That is ludicrous. Discipleship does not begin with Point "A", confession and repentence, and cannot go further until that is accomplished. Show me Scripture that even suggests that. The application of the law is a tutor to Christ. In your view, there can be no application until profession. Sorry, that is a very narrow view and it is infantile, spiritually speaking. 



> I have actually heard a Sunday School teacher say, "Now children, let's all say 'thank you' to Jesus that we're not like that nasty Pharisee!"



Again, I am sorry for your experience. That should never be condoned. But that is not our practice. 



> There is quite a bit of good, evangelistic Sunday School material for children produced in Britain. The Metropolitan Tabernacle is well known for it. www.MetropolitanTabernacle.org



From the above website:


> Lessons for Life
> Lessons for Life 1 - 4 each contain a year's Sunday School lessons (aside from special services and anniversaries). Here are lessons with a distinctive challenge for young people growing up in these perilous times. They avoid the presentation of Bible narratives as mere stories, so that the Word of God speaks powerfully to the young, pressing home the great arguments and appeals of the Gospel. These lessons, proved for over twenty-five years in Sunday Schools of all sizes (and situated in some of Britain's toughest communities), have been revised by the author for all who want soul-winning to be the keynote of their Sunday School ministry. They provide a memorable view of all the major events and doctrines of the Bible, and are supplemented by excellent visual aid suggestions and drawings. The Lessons for Life books visual aids (see below) help to apply the lesson and captivate the children's attention. The four volumes provide a lesson series extending over four years. Each lesson contains sufficient material to suit all age-groups, so that teachers may select the amount of narrative and application appropriate for their class.
> 
> The final volume in the series includes a presentation of the ten commandments, specially prepared to equip the young to face the alarming challenges of these morally perilous last days.



I see that they are evangelistically focused, but look how they end up. The final volume is application of the law that is to equip the young. How does it equip them if they've not confessed faith? According to you, they can't be given spiritual blessings that would equip them if they have not confessed faith yet.

Sorry, but this is typical of "soul-winning." And it is completely backwards from the biblical narrative. Law leads to Christ. Sounds like they're trying to gain the confession, and then they can preach the law. That's backwards. Not only that, but it isn't fulfilling the great commission to do so. We are not to make converts, but disciples. Their focus, by their own words, is on soul-winning. Sorry, but Christ already won those who are His. Their focus is in the wrong place.

Metropolitan Tabernacle is much better than some, but they are not the end all, be all. I have a respect for their ministry, but they have come a long way from Spurgeon, in the wrong direction.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ChristopherPaul

How did Jesus view the children compared to the twelve?

Can a Baptist confidently say that the children of believers are a stiff necked people? Is that the language the Bible uses for our children or just for the heads of households who are sons of wrath?

Does a Baptist actually believe that their two-year old child has grounds to worry about starving to death because they are do not have the mental maturity to confess with their mouths? Or has God provided confidence to be fed based on the faith of the parent?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Christ said:

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

The Kingdom belongs to them.

The children were: paidion  paidion - infants, children, little ones, of a male child just recently born 

We also see that these little children that they did not run up to Jesus on thier own, but were brought to Christ - 

Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. 

bre,foj brephos which means 1) an unborn child, embryo, a foetus 2) a new-born child, an infant, a babe

The children were tender and young in that they were brought, which appears more evidently in that they were infants. 

Mothers were bringing thier infants to be blessed of the Messiah, making a covenant priveledge, and Christ told them (the disciples) that they should not hinder them from coming (the mothers bringing the infants, though Christ was being overrun) since the Kingdom belongs to them.

Toioutos estin - acts as a correlative pronoun which is demosntrative to the verb "is" and means that one is "such a kind of" or "that such a thing belongs to the properties of" the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not that one should act like a little child, like in other verses, but that Christ specifically designates that covenant children own the Kingdom of heaven.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Kevin and Matt,

Very uplifting and faith strengthening brothers! Strong Gospel!

Larry


----------



## Steve Owen

> Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."


And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).



> This is not that one should act like a little child, like in other verses, but that Christ specifically designates that covenant children own the Kingdom of heaven.


This is the very theology that led to the collapse of the Church in England in the early 18th Century, and kept India and Burma in darkness until the time of Baptists Carey and Judson. Not only is it not Gospel, but it is not remotely evangelical. If it were true, then it would be back to High Church Anglicanism for me! 

It is the simple trusting faith of the small child of which the Lord speaks. Look at the very next verse. v17. *'Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.' * This can only mean two things. *Either *adults are barred from the kingdom of God, *or* whoever would enter that kingdom must set aside his intellectualism and his worldly wisdom and come *like* a little child, with simple child-like trust.

On the whole, I vote for the second alternative.

Martin


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
> 
> 
> 
> And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).
Click to expand...


I'll let 'ole Doc Matt have the rest, but I'd like to know where you get the special insight to see that 1) Jesus baptized anyone, and that 2) these were all professing adults.

Disciple and talmidim are comparative terms. The talmidim were the young ones who were taught to be "disciples" or learners of Moses. I don't think you can make a very strong case from the Bible that disciple must always mean adult. Because from the Jewish tradition, that would be incorrect.

I'd also like to point out that Jesus' disciples did not baptize believers either. What did they believe in? They didn't understand because the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. So to say that these were believers only, is a stretch. They weren't baptized in the trinity, nor had they professed faith in Christ. They had simply confessed their sins, repented to God the Father, and followed Christ. I assume that your definition of believer is rather a moving target. Perhaps, you can explain what a believer is in John 4 and how that believer is different from Acts, and further, how that believer in John 4 knows that he is different from the believer in Acts.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).


Let's examine the Scripture you use:


> John 4:1-2
> Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),


That demonstrates what? Only proves that:
1. You believe only adult believers are disciples.
2. Infants are therefore not disciples.
3. Therefore, Jesus did not baptize infants.

Of course, the conclusion rests on the _a priori_ assumption which is complicated by all the Scriptures that enjoin us to teach our children.



> This is the very theology that led to the collapse of the Church in England in the early 18th Century, and kept India and Burma in darkness until the time of Baptists Carey and Judson. Not only is it not Gospel, but it is not remotely evangelical. If it were true, then it would be back to High Church Anglicanism for me!


And, of course, egalitarian baptistic theology has led to the dumbing down of the Gospel and the spread of all sorts of pseudo-Christian movements like Pentacostalism and Charismania which emphasize experience above the Word.

A study of Evangelicalism will reveal sufficient evangelical zeal for proponents of either side and will also reveal departures from the truth in some quarters. This has no bearing on the argument.



> It is the simple trusting faith of the small child of which the Lord speaks. Look at the very next verse. v17. *'Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.' * This can only mean two things. *Either *adults are barred from the kingdom of God, *or* whoever would enter that kingdom must set aside his intellectualism and his worldly wisdom and come *like* a little child, with simple child-like trust.
> 
> On the whole, I vote for the second alternative.
> 
> Martin


Ah yes so He really _wasn't_ pronouncing a blessing upon the little children but only _pretending_ to do so to help us see how we ought to believe.

So let me get this straight - He used people _outside_ of the New Covenant to give those of us _inside_ the New Covenant a model on faith?

Wait, I'm confused...


----------



## Larry Hughes

> So let me get this straight - He used people outside of the New Covenant to give those of us inside the New Covenant a model on faith?



Rich,

Brother I needed that laugh! Truly Luther and Calvinesqe, that's a compliment!

Larry


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> I'll let 'ole Doc Matt have the rest, but I'd like to know where you get the special insight to see that 1) Jesus baptized anyone, and that 2) these were all professing adults.
> 
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC





> Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and *he remained there with them and was baptizing*.
> Joh 3:23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized
> Joh 3:24 (for John had not yet been put in prison).
> Joh 3:25 Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification.
> Joh 3:26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness--look, *he is baptizing*, and all are going to him."



Can someone tell me who was baptizing in these verses?

was baptizing is ÎµÌ“Î²Î±ÌÏ€Ï„Î¹Î¶ÎµÎ½ in the Greek in verse 22

he is baptizing is Î²Î±Ï€Ï„Î¹ÌÎ¶ÎµÎ¹ in verse 26

An inquiring mind wants to know.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Can someone tell me who was baptizing in these verses?
> 
> was baptizing is ÎµÌ“Î²Î±ÌÏ€Ï„Î¹Î¶ÎµÎ½ in the Greek in verse 22
> 
> he is baptizing is Î²Î±Ï€Ï„Î¹ÌÎ¶ÎµÎ¹ in verse 26
> 
> An inquiring mind wants to know.


I don't know. It seems as if it is Jesus baptizing but then John 4:2 casts doubt on that. Just because there is a Chapter break there from St. Jerome doesn't mean that the thoughts at the end of Chapter 3 and the beginning of Chapter 4 are disconnected. The "therefore" at the beginning of Chapter 4 clearly connects the two.

Would it change anything for you or I either way if Jesus did baptize or didn't? Maybe He did baptize at a different point that's not recorded here if we agree that John 4:2 says He did not.

One thing the Scriptures do not say is that Jesus only baptized adults. Any conclusion as to whether He baptized only adults or included children is strictly by inference.


----------



## gwine

> Would it change anything for you or I either way if Jesus did baptize or didn't? Maybe He did baptize at a different point that's not recorded here if we agree that John 4:2 says He did not.



Not really. Just wondering whether the Greek referred to Jesus or to his disciples.




> One thing the Scriptures do not say is that Jesus only baptized adults. Any conclusion as to whether He baptized only adults or included children is strictly by inference.



Agreed. I was not wondering about that part.


----------



## Peters

> Just wondering whether the Greek referred to Jesus or to his disciples.



Hello brother.

Both baptizei (present) and ebaptizev ï€ (imperfect) are in the 3rd person singular of the verb _baptize_, so they both refer to a person as opposed to persons. It can only be referring to the person Jesus.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Marcos,

Please help me here:

Greek words are italicized:


> John 3:22-4:2
> After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized (_ebÃ¡ptizen_). 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison.
> 25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified "” behold, He is baptizing (_baptÃ­zei_), and all are coming to Him!"
> 27 John answered and said,"A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said,'I am not the Christ,' but,'I have been sent before Him.' 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
> 4:1 Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized (_baptÃ­zei_) more disciples than John 2(though Jesus Himself did not baptize (_ebÃ¡ptizen_), but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.



Same Greek words are used in Chapter 4 to say very plainly that Christ Himself did _not_ baptize.


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> Ah yes so He really wasn't pronouncing a blessing upon the little children but only pretending to do so to help us see how we ought to believe.
> 
> So let me get this straight - He used people outside of the New Covenant to give those of us inside the New Covenant a model on faith?
> 
> Wait, I'm confused...



Well, the last bit's right anyway.

1. Of course Jesus blessed the children. Where do I suggest that He didn't? What neither He nor His disciples did was baptize them.

2. Our Lord used many illustrations for our benefit, including an unjust steward and a judge who didn't fear God. Why shouldn't He use little children?

Come on, Rich; you're better than this!

Grave & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

The answer to the question of whether or not the Lord Jesus baptized is not too difficult on the basis of John 4:1.

Our Lord commanded and supervised the baptisms and His disciples performed them.

It is also made clear that those who were baptized were disciples.

Martin


----------



## Peters

Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*

So I would go back to proof that disciple in the strictest sense only means adult. Again, from talmidim in Hebrew you cannot argue. The disciples of the Jewish people included children, so you'd have to come up with a positive change for this. If they were circumcised, they were taught, it is plain and simple.

Further, the males 13 years old and above were allowed to read and expound Scripture in the Synagogue. How did they learn how to do that? Were they given a 6 week discipleship course prior to their 13th birthday?

They were disciples from birth. So are our children. We are to teach them all the days they live.

Disciple is not just an adult. Disciples are children. Don't believe me? Ask Timothy. And don't say it is because he made a profession, either. He was taught the Scriptures even before it was his own volition to be a disciple.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant. On the day of Pentecost and thereafter, it is clear that a disciple was also one who professed repentance and trust in Christ for salvation (Acts 2:41 etc).

I reject your comparison of _disciples_ and _talmidim_. You are confusing the New and Old Covenants.

Martin

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'd just reaffirm what I said, and wht Rich and Kevin said. There's been nothing said to overthrow any of it exegetically.

Infants and little children are not only owners of the Kingdom of heaven, but are disciples and mature in the faith whether they embrace it or not (by grace). Adults should rest on grace, just like little children and infants, not on thier own profession, works, or abilities.


----------



## kceaster

*Martin....*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
> I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant. On the day of Pentecost and thereafter, it is clear that a disciple was also one who professed repentance and trust in Christ for salvation (Acts 2:41 etc).
> 
> I reject your comparison of _disciples_ and _talmidim_. You are confusing the New and Old Covenants.
> 
> Martin
> 
> [Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]



So, I'm curious. Where in the New Covenant does it say anything about not including children? Jeremiah 31 starts off by saying this: "At the same time," says the LORD, "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people." Not individuals, not heads of households, not adult confessing believers, but the God of the family and they shall be His people.

When did this prophecy get fulfilled? And how, if it was fulfilled, is the infant of the family not included in the people of God?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 1. Of course Jesus blessed the children. Where do I suggest that He didn't? What neither He nor His disciples did was baptize them.


Which you know _a priori_ and derive by eisegesis but not from the Scriptures themselves.



> 2. Our Lord used many illustrations for our benefit, including an unjust steward and a judge who didn't fear God. Why shouldn't He use little children?
> 
> Come on, Rich; you're better than this!


While I certainly thank you for the confidence that you have in me, I don't believe there is any substance lacking in my criticism of your assumptions.

While I agree He used illustrations, in the immediate context of the passage in question it makes very little sense to say that the Kingdom belongs to little children and then use the very children He is blessing as examples of type of faith that is required of New Covenant believers and conclude they are neither members of the kingdom nor have any real kingdom faith but are convenient props to drive a point home.

Also, what kind of faith, precisely, is required of a New Covenant believer? Since you equate New Covenant membership with the invisible Church the bar must be very high indeed. Would such faith not be salvific in nature? Christ surely could not be speaking idly about just any kind of empty trust like a blind trust in a false God or the tooth fairy could He? Where else does Christ equate true faith in Him as anything less?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...


Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one. This is kind of a sidebar discussion but was very interesting because I had never noticed that it said Christ was baptizing folks before.

As a Marine, I have an innate appreciation for things attributed to the leader which are done by those given authority to act on one's behalf. It makes perfect sense that the baptisms be attributed to Him as the one sending just as the words of the Apostles are Scripture on account of their derivative authority.


----------



## Steve Owen

> Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one.



There! I knew you were a clever fellow all along! :bigsmile:

Martin


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one. This is kind of a sidebar discussion but was very interesting because I had never noticed that it said Christ was baptizing folks before.
> 
> As a Marine, I have an innate appreciation for things attributed to the leader which are done by those given authority to act on one's behalf. It makes perfect sense that the baptisms be attributed to Him as the one sending just as the words of the Apostles are Scripture on account of their derivative authority.
Click to expand...


Kind of like saying, "Bill Gates is taking over the computer world" when it is understood that it is Microsoft we are referring to.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I find the credo-only argument a very hard sell when it comes to reconciling Jesus' promises to His Church. 

Shall I refrain from teaching or allowing the church to teach my child all that Jesus commanded until my child makes a confession that may or may not be a genuine reflection of a regenerate heart?

When figuring my monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age? If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ? That sounds ridiculous, but so does the Baptist argument in light of these household promises.

Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?

Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?

I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach. 

God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!


----------



## Peters

> When figuring monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age?
> 
> If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ?



Does God never permit His people to suffer these things? 



> Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?



We hold our newborn children assuming that the earth is the Lord´s and everything in it.

We hold our newborn children assuming that God can make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use. 

We hold our newborn children assuming that God saves those form whom Christ has died. 

We hold our newborn children begging and pleading God to save them.



> Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?



Treat them the way God treats you.



> I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach.



Unbelievable.



> God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!



Brother, do you realize what you are saying to your Baptist brothers and sisters when you write something like this in this context?


----------



## kceaster

I believe Chris is simply putting it in terms you will finally see as inconsistent in your own behavior. Of course you expect God to bless your children. Of course you pray that God will save them. You believe just as much for your kids as we do. 

So what's the difference?

We're trusting in God to save them as only He can do. While you are trusting God only so far as your children give a profession of faith and live a life of "seeming" fruit and repentence. You won't believe the promise of God until you have some assurance of it.

But we can't trust in that kind of assurance. If we could, then we would truly know who is and who isn't a Christian.

You have to see that you can't have it both ways. God's salvation cannot be sovereign if you will only choose to believe it from evidences you see with your eyes and hear with your ears.

We're essentially the same on this, guys. The problem is we believe without seeing, whereas you won't believe until you see.

Maybe I'm way off, but explain how it is any other way.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peters

> We're trusting in God to save them as only He can do. While you are trusting God only so far as your children give a profession of faith and live a life of "seeming" fruit and repentance.



If God grants our children faith in Christ through the gospel, then they will be saved. Is this not God´s way of salvation? 



> You won't believe the promise of God until you have some assurance of it.
> 
> But we can't trust in that kind of assurance. If we could, then we would truly know who is and who isn't a Christian.



God does not promise to save *our* children, He promises to save *His* children, brother. There is no infallible test to discern the presence of true faith in the soul (being born to believers included), but the Scripture gives plenty of pointers that we may lawfully use to discern, in part, such a thing. 



> You have to see that you can't have it both ways. God's salvation cannot be sovereign if you will only choose to believe it from evidences you see with your eyes and hear with your ears.



Brother, this doesn´t make sense to me. Would God have me believe a person to be saved who consistently displays the old nature? I do not think the Scriptures teach this. But I´m willing to see (no pun intended). 



> We're essentially the same on this, guys. The problem is we believe without seeing, whereas you won't believe until you see.



Again, it´s not that I won´t believe God saves, but that I have no business believing that God *has* saved a person if they consistently manifest the old nature. 

You believe that a covenant child is saved unless they eventually prove otherwise. But what does that look like? Isn't it as long as they don´t live and talk like some pagan down the street. You use exactly the same biblical method to discern whether or not an individual has been granted true faith that I do, do you not?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> When figuring monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age?
> 
> If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does God never permit His people to suffer these things?
Click to expand...


Are our children His people? Do you worry about such things? Should you? Should your children worry, why or why not?



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hold our newborn children assuming that the earth is the Lord´s and everything in it.
Click to expand...


So who are you oh man to determine when your child is to benefit from His church? Whose standards must infants meet? Who do you trust in saving, God or your perception and judgment?



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> We hold our newborn children assuming that God can make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.



But only an audible and and understandable confession will _accurately _reveal the heart of such lumps?



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> We hold our newborn children assuming that God saves those form whom Christ has died.



As do we, but I don´t know who is elect, nor do you. We simply trust God and His promises, thanking him for blessing us with children and allowing them to not only be taught by His church, but to be baptized into her fold (see Christ's commission to His Church).



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> We hold our newborn children begging and pleading God to save them.



But be consistent, they are not saved _in your eyes _until they make a confession, "œGoo goo gaga" will not do. Until that confession forbid them from addressing God as Father, warn them that they have grounds to worry about food and clothing, and refrain from teaching them all that Jesus commanded until they can also be baptized.




> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them the way God treats you.
Click to expand...


Righteous through Christ?



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Marcos, from my perspective, you are giving the message to my children that their being in my household means nothing because of _man´s judgment_. Yet you will make disciples by teaching but not baptizing because of _your perception _of what the heart looks like. God chooses, not me, so all I can do is serve the Lord by obedience as directed through such passages as Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6, and Colossians 3. I don´t wait for a mere sign that may or may not be accurate. I assume and obey, because that is all I can do. Whether the child has learned to speak in a language I can understand or is still speaking gibberish, I will treat him as a child of God for the worse case is that he is in fact not, but I faithfully obeyed and trust in the Potter to do as He pleases. I am His servant and will not stand in the way of a glorious promise because _I_ simply do not understand what is getting though to my child and what is not.



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, do you realize what you are saying to your Baptist brothers and sisters when you write something like this in this context?
Click to expand...


I realize I am saying that Baptists are inconsistent and impose a condition that hinders all children simply because they have not learned to speak yet. As a federal head of my house, I will speak for my household. While I am equally yoked to my wife, and our children are under our care, we will all serve the Lord, regenerate or not, I DON´T ULTIMATELY KNOW, we will all fear God and obey His commandments. When our children are old, we pray they do not depart from the ways we instructed them, but if they ultimately do, then they will be cursed like all those who do not fear God. But while they are in my house, they will serve the Lord and will be instructed by the Church, and will trust God to provide, and will address Him as their Father and savior.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> If God grants our children faith in Christ through the gospel, then they will be saved. Is this not God´s way of salvation?



Absolutely. But when you claim that God's promises are not sure UNTIL, they do such a thing, aren't you claiming that outward signs MUST accompany or else the person is not saved. Doesn't that mean that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as you state below that we cannot know) who is saved and who isn't.

God's promise is sure from the foundation of the world. We can unequivocally say that each of His promises, whether for good or ill, will come to pass. They do not need outward manifestation to be sure.

The best example that I can give you is if a father promises to take his child to the ocean. The child believes in the promise and waits patiently (as patient as a child can be) for the father to fulfill it. Now if the father had promised many times before to do this thing and had done it for the child's siblings when they were younger, but not to this particular child; the child knows, from the stories that the other children have told, that the father will do what he says. The child believes because the father has made good his promises to the other children.

We have that kind of example in God, our Father. He promises to save, to take us to the ocean of His grace, to be a God to us and to our children. He's saved countless other children and what's more, He's saved us. There is more reason to believe His promise is sure, than to believe it not. But reason alone can't help us. The Spirit bears witness that the promises of God are true. We don't need proof. We don't have to wait until God takes us to the ocean.

Do you see how you might doubt God who is strong to save by not believing the promises for your children?



> God does not promise to save *our* children, He promises to save *His* children, brother. There is no infallible test to discern the presence of true faith in the soul (being born to believers included), but the Scripture gives plenty of pointers that we may lawfully use to discern, in part, such a thing.



I really can't help you, here. If you don't believe that God promises to be a God to us and to our children, then I don't know what to say. The New Covenant promises that God will be a God to us and to our children. You can't get more biblical than that.

And, by the way, they're all His children who bear the mark of baptism. If He calls Israel His bride when they were all covenant breakers, then there is no reason to assume that the children of a covenant family are not His children. That does not mean that salvation is automatic. It means that salvation is of the Lord, not of the profession of faith. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. We trust in His promise, not in our promise. 



> Brother, this doesn´t make sense to me. Would God have me believe a person to be saved who consistently displays the old nature? I do not think the Scriptures teach this. But I´m willing to see (no pun intended).



Brother, our children need the discipline of the Lord just as we do. But the covenant children at my church, although wicked and evil sinners by nature, are not children of wrath. 

I consistenly display my old nature. Does that mean I'm not saved? Do you still sin? Do you need someone to remind you to repent? This is no different than our children. They mess up, they need discipline, they need to say they're sorry. They need to ask God's forgiveness. How is this different from you or I? Baptized infants still sin. The mark on them does not mean that the Holy Spirit has altogether sanctified them. They must be converted. That's why we preach the gospel in our covenant communion.

But the first part of your question is important. Would God have you believe a person to be saved...? Where is it written that God requires us to believe a person is saved? We are to be sure about our own salvation, and we are to hope for the salvation of others. We exhort, encourage, rebuke, and correct, but where is it written that we must be assured of another's salvation? God has not made us the judge of His own servants. If we must know and believe a person to be saved, then it must mean that we are their judge. While we will judge the nations, we will not judge each other. God does not need you to believe a person is saved in order for Him to save. He needs you to believe in Him for everyone. To hope in Him for everyone.



> Again, it´s not that I won´t believe God saves, but that I have no business believing that God *has* saved a person if they consistently manifest the old nature.
> 
> You believe that a covenant child is saved unless they eventually prove otherwise. But what does that look like? Isn't it as long as they don´t live and talk like some pagan down the street. You use exactly the same biblical method to discern whether or not an individual has been granted true faith that I do, do you not?



Our children are held to a pretty high standard, and I cannot imagine you doing otherwise. As I said above, they need discipline. They need the oxgoad (the Hebrew farm implement that is the basis for the Hebrew word for teach and learn), they need to be taught to fear the LORD.

But if you were consistent, then you would rebuke these children of wrath, but you could not correct them. For, in correcting them, you are treating them as sons. If they are sons of the devil, then doesn't it more befit the situation that you would just leave them alone, that you wouldn't plead with them to repent and change their ways? I cannot imagine any Christian parent doing that with a child. I know some have because they believed the lie that heavy-handed discipline somehow mistreats the child. But the Bible teaches that if the rod is spared, the child will be rotten.

If you suggest that we treat these children as a rank pagan, because that is what in their hearts they are if they have not professed faith in Christ, then discipline should be tossed out the window. Let them go. Let them be as bad as they want to be.

But I know you don't agree with that. You agree with bringing up the child in the fear and admonition of the LORD. Why? Just because He's told you to? Or, do you have the hope that He will save them if it is His will to do so? You do have that hope, and so you discipline them. In other word's, you make disciples of Christ.

If you could only get past the profession of faith and baptism; if you could lay aside the individual will of each person and see that this is holy child-rearing; then you may be able to see why we believe the promises of God BEFORE they are manifest. We expect that the child will fear the LORD, we do not suggest they do. We demand it. Is that coercion? Unless the young ox is taught to plow straight, how can they ever? Under your system, you expect them to plow straight before they are taught to do so. I cannot see where the Bible suggests this even in the remotest sense.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> The best example that I can give you is if a father promises to take his child to the ocean. The child believes in the promise and waits patiently (as patient as a child can be) for the father to fulfill it. Now if the father had promised many times before to do this thing and had done it for the child's siblings when they were younger, but not to this particular child; the child knows, from the stories that the other children have told, that the father will do what he says. The child believes because the father has made good his promises to the other children.
> 
> We have that kind of example in God, our Father. He promises to save, to take us to the ocean of His grace, to be a God to us and to our children. He's saved countless other children and what's more, He's saved us. There is more reason to believe His promise is sure, than to believe it not. But reason alone can't help us. The Spirit bears witness that the promises of God are true. We don't need proof. We don't have to wait until God takes us to the ocean.



It seems to me that your analogy just means that the father might make a promise to that last child and then not take her to the ocean. I am curious than, as to how many children within each camp do come to profess their faith. Anybody have numbers? 




> And, by the way, they're all His children who bear the mark of baptism. If He calls Israel His bride when they were all covenant breakers, then there is no reason to assume that the children of a covenant family are not His children. .



I would appreciate a Scriptural reference that would explain that God was referring to all of Israel when he called her his Bride. After all, Paul said that not all Israel is Israel.

Keep up the debate. And continue to keep it civil.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> It seems to me that your analogy just means that the father might make a promise to that last child and then not take her to the ocean. I am curious than, as to how many children within each camp do come to profess their faith. Anybody have numbers?



Well, all analogies break down, but I believe in this one, the father took the child to the ocean, but it did not enjoy it enough to want to come back. It tasted the good fruits of the beach, it took in the warmth of the sun, and bathed in the cool waters, but in the end the child turned away and didn't want to go back. 

Such as was God with the children of Israel. All passed through the waters, but God was displeased with many of them. He promised salvation by removing them from Egypt. All were removed, but not all went into the land.

If you want numbers, I believe that all of the elect were at one point children. But as to how many from each camp, it is not really ours to say, is it? How many hypocrites exist in each camp? How many will there be on Judgment Day who will cry out, "Lord, Lord?"



> I would appreciate a Scriptural reference that would explain that God was referring to all of Israel when he called her his Bride. After all, Paul said that not all Israel is Israel.
> 
> Keep up the debate. And continue to keep it civil.



Jer. 31:32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

Again, all came out, but not all went in. Isn't that the visible, invisible church right there in that statement?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## gwine

Thanks for the Jeremiah reference.

The question I was asking about the numbers was more directed to members of the PB, not statistics from the church community at large. I know families on both sides of the fence who have offspring (adult children) who have not as yet made a profession of faith and/or show no signs as yet that they will. I would say that I am batting 50% at this point (my 2 sons are 23 and 24), so the question is somewhat personal. You don't have to answer if you don't want, and I am looking more for numbers regarding adult children, say 18 and older.


----------



## kceaster

*Gerry...*

I can answer in about 5 years. Right now they seem to be exhibiting fruits in keeping with repentence. My wife and I pray and hope that God will help them improve their baptism and make good their profession of faith.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

Kevin wrote:-


> Jer. 31:32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."
> 
> Again, all came out, but not all went in. Isn't that the visible, invisible church right there in that statement?



I think you just shot yourself through the foot, Kevin!
'All came out, but not all went in' is *'according* to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is 'all came out (of the world) and all go in (to the Kingdom of God)' *'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.' *

Martin


----------



## piningforChrist

> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?



Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.


----------



## kceaster

*Feeling no pain in my foot...*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I think you just shot yourself through the foot, Kevin!
> 'All came out, but not all went in' is *'according* to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is 'all came out (of the world) and all go in (to the Kingdom of God)' *'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.' *
> 
> Martin



EISOGESIS. The OC foreshadows the NC. Egypt is a type of the world, and the Land of Promise is a type of the kingdom of God. If there are visible/invisible distinctions in the old, there are visible/invisible distinctions in the new.

It breaks down practically for you, because many adult professing believers have been baptized (which you would say entered the kingdom of God) but have turned their back on their profession and the Christ they professed. If they all know, then in knowing they have done the impossible; they have thwarted God in salvation.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.
Click to expand...


ok"¦

And apparently it is up to man to make the determination if this is the case or not? 

You may want to read the thread before you reiterate what has already been unpacked (and in my opinion dismantled  ).


----------



## Peters

> Are our children His people?



If they are clothed in the Son by grace through faith alone, yes. 



> Do you worry about such things?



(I´ll take this question as referring to nakedness and hunger and not to your first question) No. 



> Should you?



No



> Should your children worry, why or why not?



It depends whether or not they are clothed in the Son by grace through alone. 



> So who are you oh man to determine when your child is to benefit from His church?



Our children benefit from the church all the time. What do you mean? 



> Whose standards must infants meet?



For what? For salvation? They must believe the Gospel. 



> Who do you trust in saving, God or your perception and judgment?



I don´t understand why you´re asking these questions. This one doesn´t even make sense. In what sense could "œtrusting in my perception and judgment" ever accomplish salvation? Please answer my initial question: Do the people of God ever suffer hunger and nakedness? 



> But only an audible and understandable confession will accurately reveal the heart of such lumps?



Not infallibly, no. But it is a standard given to us to in the Scriptures to discern *in part*. 



> As do we, but I don´t know who is elect, nor do you.



Agreed, but we do know unto whom Adam´s transgression and guilt is imputed "“ his posterity. 



> We simply trust God and His promises, thanking him for blessing us with children and allowing them to not only be taught by His church, but to be baptized into her fold (see Christ's commission to His Church).



Isn´t it that He promises to be *their* God? What happens to that promise if the child proves to be an unbeliever? How could that happen? *They* break the covenant? You know what that sounds like, don´t you? Exactly the kind of Arminianism that Baptists are accused of. It works both ways. 



> But be consistent, they are not saved in your eyes until they make a confession, "œGoo goo gaga" will not do. Until that confession forbid them from addressing God as Father, warn them that they have grounds to worry about food and clothing, and refrain from teaching them all that Jesus commanded until they can also be baptized.



No, I will teach them what they *should* do, think, say and believe. 



> Righteous through Christ?



I suppose I ought to have said "œ"¦treated you." I meant love them, even though they are sinners.



> Marcos, from my perspective, you are giving the message to my children that their being in my household means nothing of man´s judgment.



Sorry for that, brother. It means a great deal that they´re in your house, surrounded by the light of the Gospel and faithful parents. From a *human* perspective, that´s wonderful, but from a biblical perspective it doesn´t promise anything. If it did, then all children brought up faithfully in Christian homes would prove to be elect sinners. They do not. 



> Yet you will make disciples by teaching but not baptizing because of your perception of what the heart looks like.



It´s not *my* perception, Chris. The Bible gives us pointers (fallible pointers) all over the place to use. I´m not judging according to my own standard. 



> God chooses, me, so all I can do is serve the Lord by obedience as directed through such passages as Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6, and Colossians 3. I don´t wait for a mere sign that may or may not be accurate. I assume and obey, because that is all I can do.



But that´s you on you, not you on someone else.



> Whether the child has learned to speak in a language I can understand or is still speaking gibberish, I will treat him as a child of God for the worse case is that he is in fact not, but I faithfully obeyed and trust in the Potter to do as He pleases. I am His servant and will not stand in the way of a glorious promise because I simply do not understand what is getting though to my child and what is not.



What you do with your children is beautiful. It´s what you presume about them that I disagree with. 



> I realize I am saying that Baptists are inconsistent and impose a condition that hinders all children simply because they have not learned to speak yet. As a federal head of my house, I will speak for my household. While I am equally yoked to my wife, and our children are under our care, we will all serve the Lord, regenerate or not, I DON´T ULTIMATELY KNOW, we will all fear God and obey His commandments. When our children are old, we pray they do not depart from the ways we instructed them, but if they ultimately do, then they will be cursed like all those who do not fear God. But while they are in my house, they will serve the Lord and will be instructed by the Church, and will trust God to provide, and will address Him as their Father and savior.





[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Peters]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Marcos, I can see we have different paradigms here and from your responses you do not understand my view of baptism and the Church (but of course, right?  ).

My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.

From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her. My child is not under his own authority but under his parents. The parents do not allow (or should not allow) his choices to guide their parental steps. The parents are his authority and through obedience and wisdom as disciples themselves, they will guide him by making decisions for him (regarding how he will be raised).

The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by God Himself, in following His command to raise them as disciples. From birth my child is a disciple. I will not only teach him all that Jesus commanded, but will allow him to be taught by the church and baptized by her per Jesus´ commission in Matthew 28. Baptism and teaching _by the Church_ go hand in hand.

So when you admit that your children benefit from the church all the time, but do not understand what I mean, I mean that you are being inconsistent and are unduly separating baptism from the Church by treating the two separate. 

You are imposing a requirement on the child to give permission to baptize when first of all, they are not under their own authority, but under their parents thus making them "œholy" due to their "œholy" parents. Second you are assuming such a confession to be genuine, when it may not be at all. The baptizee may have been justified years before the confession (who knows when the actual act happens?) or will not be justified until years after (deceived into thinking they are Christians when they are really not). So you are requiring a man-centered act due to the fact that the sacrament will only be allowed if a man determines the confession to be genuine or not.

The problem we have here is confusion with baptism and salvation. Disciples are made and have been made through baptism and teaching _but without salvation _from a visible church point of view. Consider Ananias and Saphira and the like. Yes we discern, but in the case of those under the care of their parents who are in the confessing parents household, we give no authority to the infant. 
What I presume is that they are my children and I will treat them as I am commanded to which is just like a fellow disciple. You seem to have a difficult time with the concept of assuming they are saved. Ultimately I don´t know what type of vessel God made them, but I do know how God directs me to raise them. They are a part of my household and they will not worry about material things, they will address God as Father, and learn all that Jesus commanded. 

Christians need not worry about food and clothing. Their children need not worry either, for God will not provide only for the parents and turn away from their children (while under their care). To my surprise you and other Baptists are willing to admit the latter hypothetical. If you admit that then it is what it is. I find that tragic.

I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.

Grace brother,


----------



## ChristopherPaul

My wife just called me to tell me how my kids insisted on praying at lunch today. My oldest who is four concluded the little prayer session with a very drawn out prayer, praying for everyone in the family including grammy, and pappy, grandma, and papa, aunts and uncles. I was quick to ask if she prayed for me. That makes me smile.

However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?



Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous. 

Who are we to know those whom the Lord hears? If Saddam Hussein were to pray to Christ and accept Him as Lord would you say that He would not hear him? I am having a difficult time understanding the tone of this thread insofar as whether or not God listens to the prayers of credo-baptist children or even whether their parents have a right to encourage such.

The tone of this thread is dark, indeed.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.
> 
> Who are we to know those whom the Lord hears? If Saddam Hussein were to pray to Christ and accept Him as Lord would you say that He would not hear him? I am having a difficult time understanding the tone of this thread insofar as whether or not God listens to the prayers of credo-baptist children or even whether their parents have a right to encourage such.
> 
> The tone of this thread is dark, indeed.
Click to expand...


Gerry, I agree. The first post of this thread asked who Jesus was referring to when He said the Father will reward and bless his people and they should not worry for He sees them as valuable. If an atheist or a Muslim calls on the name of Jesus, then they are no longer a Muslim or an atheist. Same with Hussein if he called on the name of Jesus. But until then, all their prayers in accordance to what they believe and actually worship are useless and they certainly can worry about life, for they do not love God (cf: Romans 8:28-29).

What our Baptist brothers are saying is our children, despite the fact that they have not learned to talk yet, should be assumed the same as the atheist, Muslim and Hussein even though they are born in and under the authority of a covenant family with two or one "holy" believing parent(s). 

It is indeed dark when they are forced to carry their theology to it's logical conclusions, which they consistently have shown:






> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Christopher asked
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless they believe.
Click to expand...




> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
> I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant.





> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.
Click to expand...




> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> Should your children worry, why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends whether or not they are clothed in the Son by grace through alone.
Click to expand...


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> What our Baptist brothers are saying is our children, despite the fact that they have not learned to talk yet, should be assumed the same as the atheist, Muslim and Hussein even though they are born in and under the authority of a covenant family with two or one "holy" believing parent(s).
> 
> It is indeed dark when they are forced to carry their theology to it's logical conclusions, which they consistently have shown:



And this is where I disagree, but maybe I still don't get it (hey, Keon, should I stop now?). I don't believe the families I know would think like this. Christ himself said to the Pharisees:



> Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.



And they were of the circumcision. Why is it so strange to think that children, whether of credo or peado parents, are any different? In either case we are still to train them up in the way they should go.


----------



## Peters

> Marcos, I can see we have different paradigms here and from your responses you do not understand my view of baptism and the Church (but of course, right? ).



Agreed  



> My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.



1)	No one is denying that we can´t know for certain who has been regenerated. On this we agree.

2)	It is *because* we do not know that we baptize on a *good* confession, a confession accompanied by marks of grace in the person´s life.

3)	The reason why baptism is withheld from a baby is because it may not be regenerate. Until the infant shows marks of grace *according to the standards given in Scripture*, it must be considered as being in Adam. 



> From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her.



Here is the problem: Some dude says he wants to be a disciple and you baptize him, no questions asked, call him a Christian and a follower of Christ. Why? Because *you* don´t know if he´s elect or not. Not even Baptists are this bad :bigsmile: Do you really believe that there are no pointers given to us in Scripture to discern who is regenerate and who is not?

Also, if you are referring to Matt 28:19, you have inserted the word *by* yourself. It is not there. You ought not to do that.



> The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by disciple.



Brother, why do you continuously misrepresent my position? I am not waiting for the child´s permission. I am waiting for grace to manifest itself, because we are to apply baptism as best we can to believers. It has nothing to do with permission. 



> I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.
> 
> Grace brother,



I appreciate all your time, Chris. I will continue to consider the arguments.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChritopherPaul_
> My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)	No one is denying that we can´t know for certain who has been regenerated. On this we agree.
> 
> 2)	It is *because* we do not know that we baptize on a *good* confession, a confession accompanied by marks of grace in the person´s life.
> 
> 3)	The reason why baptism is withheld from a baby is because it may not be regenerate. Until the infant shows marks of grace *according to the standards given in Scripture*, it must be considered as being in Adam.
Click to expand...


Marcos, do you see any problem with teaching all that Jesus commands to a child who may not be regenerate?



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChritopherPaul_
> From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem: Some dude says he wants to be a disciple and you baptize him, no questions asked, call him a Christian and a follower of Christ. Why? Because *you* don´t know if he´s elect or not. Not even Baptists are this bad :bigsmile: Do you really believe that there are no pointers given to us in Scripture to discern who is regenerate and who is not?
Click to expand...


Perhaps we are talking past each other until we break out the fundamental arguments for and against infant baptism (which we need not beat a dead horse, but rather refer to the many other threads on the matter).

With that said, I am coming into this with the presupposition that baptism is a sign that one is now part of the church to be discipled by her just as circumcision was in the OT.

Those, in the NT who were deemed unregenerate and handed over to satan were baptized already. The critical emphasize for a confident sign that the person is truly among the elect is not modeled for us in the apostolic texts.





> _Originally posted by Peters_Also, if you are referring to Matt 28:19, you have inserted the word *by* yourself. It is not there. You ought not to do that.



So you disagree that making disciples involves baptizing and teaching? The Church is to make disciples, baptizing and teaching them. I also added the "œChurch". Perhaps we should not baptize and teach at all since the 11 Jesus was addressing are no longer with us? 

Take your child and make a disciple out of him. How do you do this? Do you teach? Do you baptize?




> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChritopherPaul_
> The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by disciple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, why do you continuously misrepresent my position? I am not waiting for the child´s permission. I am waiting for grace to manifest itself, because we are to apply baptism as best we can to believers. It has nothing to do with permission.
Click to expand...


I am sorry you feel I am misrepresenting you. My motive is to bring to light what I feel you are actually waiting for before you baptize. From my perspective, you are giving authority to the child by not baptizing him until he professes faith rather than baptizing him due to the profession of his parents who are commanded to teach him all that Jesus commanded and treat him as a disciple. I will also baptize him along with teaching, but for reasons we are discussing you will do the one (teach), but not the other (baptize).



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChritopherPaul_
> I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.
> 
> Grace brother,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate all your time, Chris. I will continue to consider the arguments.
Click to expand...


As do I appreciate your time. I believe to be productive we will have to tackle our presuppositions rather than restating what we require for discipleship.

I was raised Arminian, dispensationalist, credo baptist. I remember being convinced on credo-only baptisms because I tied baptism to justification. Once I untied the two, I was able to grasp the paedo argument. Perhaps this is where we must go next. You need to convince me to tie them back together and I would have to convince to you to separate them apart.

Cheers Marcos!


----------



## gwine

> I am sorry you feel I am misrepresenting you. My motive is to bring to light what I feel you are actually waiting for before you baptize. From my perspective, you are giving authority to the child by not baptizing him until he professes faith rather than baptizing him due to the profession of his parents who are commanded to teach him all that Jesus commanded and treat him as a disciple. I will also baptize him along with teaching, but for reasons we are discussing you will do the one (teach), but not the other (baptize).



I am not understanding what you mean by 'giving authority'.

What are we doing when an older person is led through preaching and teaching to Christ? The OPC (at least the one I attend) would not baptize someone the instant they come to Christ. He would spend a few weeks in consultation with the pastor and then go before the session and give a credible confession of faith. After posting the news in the following Sunday's bulletin he would be baptized the Sunday after that.

What would you call him during the interim? I would call him a Christian.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry you feel I am misrepresenting you. My motive is to bring to light what I feel you are actually waiting for before you baptize. From my perspective, you are giving authority to the child by not baptizing him until he professes faith rather than baptizing him due to the profession of his parents who are commanded to teach him all that Jesus commanded and treat him as a disciple. I will also baptize him along with teaching, but for reasons we are discussing you will do the one (teach), but not the other (baptize).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not understanding what you mean by 'giving authority'.
> 
> What are we doing when an older person is led through preaching and teaching to Christ? The OPC (at least the one I attend) would not baptize someone the instant they come to Christ. He would spend a few weeks in consultation with the pastor and then go before the session and give a credible confession of faith. After posting the news in the following Sunday's bulletin he would be baptized the Sunday after that.
> 
> What would you call him during the interim? I would call him a Christian.
Click to expand...


As would I (call him a Christian). But "œwhat would stop him from being baptized now" as the Eunuch declared?

There is nothing magical in the water itself. If we baptize at 8 days or 30, we are doing so out of obedience.

This older person you speak of is not being baptized based on his parents profession, because he is no longer under their authority nor within their household. A child born within a professing parent´s household will be raised the way he should go whether he "œlikes it or not." The fact is, the child will not know any other way but his parent´s way in the beginning. It is simple parental influence. God commands us to raise the child in all knowledge and fear of God. The Baptist will do likewise and treat them as a disciple per se, but will withhold the sacrament of inclusion.


----------



## Steve Owen

Christopher wrote:-


> Those, in the NT who were deemed unregenerate and handed over to satan were baptized already. *The critical emphasize for a confident sign that the person is truly among the elect is not modelled for us in the apostolic texts. *
> emphasis mine- Martin



I think you are quite wrong.
Acts 2:41-2. *'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.........and they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers.'* cf. also 4:32ff.

Church discipline is one of the signs of a true church, and its successful use is shown in 1Cor 5:13 and 2Cor 2:6-11. It certainly appears that the discipline brought the backslider to repentance.

Of the two men whom Paul *'delivered to Satan'* in 1Tim 1:20, Alexander was certainly not recovered (2Tim 4:14 ), but the very fact that Hymenaeus is not mentioned with him suggests that perhaps he later repented.

In 1Cor 1:16, Paul recalls that he baptized *'The household of Stephanus'*. In 15:17, he records that this same household had, *'Devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints'.* What a great record of service! The Thessalonian Christians, who had, *'Received the word in much afflicton'* (1Thes 1:6; 2:14 ), also endured through the persecution, much to Paul's joy (3:1-8 ).

What happened in Apostolic times is what we find today; the large majority of baptized believers continue with the Lord, but alas! There are certainly those who fall away.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 11-18-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## gwine

> But "œwhat would stop him from being baptized now" as the Eunuch declared?



Perhaps Philip (the disciple) had special knowledge of the situation. All I know is that our church would not do so immediately, nor would the EFC church that we attended. I would be surprised if any Reformed church would, without first a time of instruction and then a public confession of faith. Anyone know otherwise?



> It is simple parental influence. God commands us to raise the child in all knowledge and fear of God. The Baptist will do likewise and treat them as a disciple per se, but will withhold the sacrament of inclusion.



I read what you are saying but I am still stuck in the adult mindset.  We will just have to  and leave it at that.


----------



## Steve Owen

Christopher wrote:-


> As would I (call him a Christian). But "œwhat would stop him from being baptized now" as the Eunuch declared?
> 
> There is nothing magical in the water itself. If we baptize at 8 days or 30, we are doing so out of obedience.



If you baptize an infant, you do not do so out of obedience, since there is no divine command to do so.

If you look at the record in Acts, you will find people being baptized very quickly, but not without teaching (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:6, 12, 35-37; 10:44-48; 13:48; 16:14-15, 32-33; 17:2-4, 11-12; 18:4-8 ). The teaching comes first, then the believing, then the baptizing.


> God commands us to raise the child in all knowledge and fear of God. The Baptist will do likewise and treat them as a disciple per se, but will withhold the sacrament of inclusion.



Baptists will certainly teach their children about the Lord Jesus, but we will not treat them as believers until we have good reason to do so. My personal policy is not to baptize any child until he has reached puberty. A young child will often say what he thinks his parents want to hear. There is no clear example in the Bible of a young child being baptized.

In my opinion, if we treat a child as a Christian before we have good reason to believe he is, we are making a most serious error and doing a grave disservice to the child. Church history is littered with examples of children who grew up to discard their parents' faith.

The story of Edmund Gosse and his son, Philip, is sad but instructive. A potted version is given in _The Green Eye of the Storm_ by John Rendle-Short (Banner of Truth, 1998. ISBN 0 85151 727 7 ).

Martin


----------

