# A question of my study and ponderings over covenants?



## Larry Hughes (Jul 9, 2005)

A question of my study and ponderings over covenants?

As I pondered Hebrews and its over-arching teaching that the things of the OT were shadows and types of Christ (the Substance) to come, something Sinclair Fergusson said once regarding this shadow and substance theme (which came first). It wasn´t the which came first but the application of it concerning covenants in particular.

It is often argued by others that the covenantal view that includes children of believers fails to understand that God is dealing with His people in the NT in a much different way today. E.g., This is one of John Piper's main arguments. But I´m not going there to the negative side of the argument, but to the positive.

However, Hebrews goes to great lengths to lay out that the OT was type and shadow and the NT is the Substance of the types and shadows. That is to say experientially in redemptive history the types and shadows preceded the Substance, Christ. But logically the Substance of the types and shadows precede the types and shadows that the substance cast. This is axiomatic. I analyzed this on a "œsmaller bite" to ease digestion a bit and to think through the drift of the difference in my pea brain: For example in terms of another observer's experience if I am just about to round the corner of a building with the sun at my back - a shadow is cast. Such that an observer on the other side of the 90 degree of the building would see my cast shadow first as I approach (time/space/history experience). Then as I round the corner the observer would see the substance of the shadow he/she saw before - seeing its fulfillment. Therefore, in terms of experience in time and space the observer experiences (sees) the shadow first, then the substance casting that shadow second. Yet, in logical reality I must exist FIRST before any shadow may be cast. No substance first, no shadow thereafter. The observer would not see explicit detail of my being in the shadow, but would get specifics as to its general structure - being human, with a head, arms, hands, torso, legs and feet. He may not know the fullness of the substance like specific build of my stature, features of my face, skin color, hair, hair color and so forth - but would be able to generally recognize the structure. Thus, if he observed a human form in shadow and next a dog rounds the corner he would know that this dog was not the substance of the shadow he saw - but when I round the corner he would see the fulfillment of the shadows in detail. Likewise seeing the structure of the my human body in the shadows and all its appendages and their general shape - he would be quite surprised if I rounded the corner having shadowed forth two legs and feet, only hoping across the corner with one leg and one foot.

Similarly, the types and shadows seen in the OT foresaw the Substance which was to be fully revealed in Christ as Christ (Gospel, new and better promises by the fullness of them) - Who already was in order to cast the types and shadows seen in the OT. This seems to be why Jesus said concerning Abraham that Abraham foresaw His day and rejoiced. And Paul in many places in Romans spoke of the Law and Prophets bearing witness to the Gospel (Christ) in the OT.

Now, here is my question. If in the OT both believing Jews (covenant people), hypocrites who were Cov. Peop., and children of the Cov. People ALL took part of the types and shadows (rounding the corner so speak before the Substance), they part-took of the shadows, then wouldn´t it be an extremely shocking thing that one of those three in that group would not partake in the Substance which was Christ? And at that the one´s most innocent on an earthly level (not innocent in terms of sin to God) whereby only true adult converts and hypocrites are afforded to continue to enjoy the Substance of the shadow they previously enjoyed under "lesser quality promises" (e.g. above, in terms of revelation, my shadow would be inferior as to quality but none-the-less real, as to where my body/substance would be "new and better" as to its fulness)?

If the infants of the covenant people enjoyed the grace and mery of the shadows which were lessor so to speak, would it not be violence to in essence remove them symbolically in the Substance which is Christ, the new and better promises?

Pondering,

Larry

[Edited on 7-10-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Peters (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi Larry



> It is often argued by others that the covenantal view that includes children of believers fails to understand that God is dealing with His people in the NT in a much different way today.



I think this is part of the weakness with this argument. It is better to say that the NC brings greater clarity to God´s dealing with people. Nothing has changed in the way of salvation. The NC, as an administration of the COG, sheds much more light upon the person and work of Jesus Christ than any other covenant before it. 



> If in the OT both believing Jews (covenant people), hypocrites who were Cov. Peop., and children of the Cov. People ALL took part of the types and shadows (rounding the corner so speak before the Substance), they part-took of the shadows, then wouldn´t it be an extremely shocking thing that one of those three in that group would not partake in the Substance which was Christ?



I don´t think so. An outward only member of the NC (baptised unregenerate not in the COG) does not partake of Christ in the same way that an inward member of the NC (baptised regenerate in the COG) partakes of Christ. The latter is united to Christ by grace through faith alone, whereas the former is not. This has been the case for all the temporal, historical covenants, therefore, it should not be shocking when he NC better reveals this. 



> If the infants of the covenant people enjoyed the grace and mercy of the shadows which were lesser so to speak, would it not be violence to in essence remove them symbolically in the Substance which is Christ, the new and better promises?



Again, I don´t think so. It is not a national race according to the shadow that God is establishing; it is a nation of faith (as it has always been) according to the Substance. The NC now makes it clear that we are no longer to apply the sign according to the shadow but according the Substance, to those who are of the faith.


----------



## Scott (Jul 25, 2005)

Larry - I think you are right.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 25, 2005)

You know, when it comes right down to it, all we're thinking about is ourselves. Nevermind the next generation. Who cares about them? If God saves them, He saves them. The important thing is that we're saved. That's why the NC is better. We get better assurance that we're saved.

BUT....

Why was Abraham looking forward? Why did it appeal to him that he was to be the father of many nations? Why would God promise him something that was not meant for all his posterity, i.e, even his spiritual progenitors?

Et patribus...Et posteritati.

Why didn't God have a brother or sister? Why did He have a Son? Why was the plan of redemption enacted because of a Son? Why is God called Father?

Why do we act like God is forced to act over a framework of family in the OC, only to throw it away in the NC? Families don't get in the way of God's plan, they are God's plan.

The sooner we realize this, the better. Our individualism is running rampant.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peters (Jul 25, 2005)

> Why do we act like God is forced to act over a framework of family in the OC, only to throw it away in the NC? Families don't get in the way of God's plan, they are God's plan.



It is not that the concept of family is thrown away in the NC, but that the reality to which it was designed to point to has finally come. Redemptive history is a story that develops.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 25, 2005)

I agree. The role of the family in redemptive history is clearer now than it ever has been. The Bridegroom has come. We now see the family of God as it really is.

And it still includes children.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Philip A (Jul 25, 2005)

Y'all remember Finney's "burned-over" region on the east coast?

I think this has officially become the "burned-over" debate.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 25, 2005)

Good thoughts Larry.


----------



## Peters (Jul 26, 2005)

> I agree. The role of the family in redemptive history is clearer now than it ever has been. The Bridegroom has come. We now see the family of God as it really is.
> 
> And it still includes children.



Do you think i cannot agree with you here?


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

*Marcos...*

It depends on what level you're agreeing. Are you keeping the children at arms length, or do you, as your Savior does, embrace them as fully as He did. He put His hands on them and blessed them.  He didn't wait for a profession.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

I think a very intresting practial question that shows allot about people's (oftenimplicit views) is whether children of believers should be taught to pray in the name of Jesus for things other than their salvation. I know some influential baptists who teach that the answer is no - kids must wait till they have a crisis conversion experience, according to them. These kids are really taught to be outside the covenant.


----------



## Robin (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I think a very intresting practial question that shows allot about people's (oftenimplicit views) is whether children of believers should be taught to pray in the name of Jesus for things other than their salvation. I know some influential baptists who teach that the answer is no - kids must wait till they have a crisis conversion experience, according to them. These kids are really taught to be outside the covenant.



You're onto something Scott! Didn't Jesus have something to say about not hindering the children to come to Him? Or something along that line?

r.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Robin - Yes, although although I imagine that baptists would try to limit that to the Old Covenant as He was dealing with circumcized children. Of course the baptists on the board can express their own views.

The parenting materials I was speaking of is the Growing Kids God's Way materials by the Ezzos, who at one time were attending John MacArthur's church but I understand are now on the outs with them (and even publicly rebuked by JM or other church leaders for issues I can't remember). I was floored when I heard them teaching to teach the kids to not pray in Jesus' name until the kids were of age and had an appropriate conversion.


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 26, 2005)

Here's some info about Ezzo & Grace Community Church (MacArthur's church):
http://ezzo.info/GCC/revisedgrace.htm


----------



## Peters (Jul 26, 2005)

Kevin



> It depends on what level you're agreeing. Are you keeping the children at arms length, or do you, as your Savior does, embrace them as fully as He did. He put His hands on them and blessed them. He didn't wait for a profession.



Are you referring to the time when the children came to Jesus?

Scott



> I think a very interesting practical question that shows allot about people's (often implicit views) is whether children of believers should be taught to pray in the name of Jesus for things other than their salvation. I know some influential Baptists who teach that the answer is no - kids must wait till they have a crisis conversion experience, according to them. These kids are really taught to be outside the covenant.



I will teach my kids to beg Christ for a new heart that loves Him. Everything else can wait.


----------



## Robin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Robin - Yes, although although I imagine that baptists would try to limit that to the Old Covenant as He was dealing with circumcized children. Of course the baptists on the board can express their own views.
> 
> The parenting materials I was speaking of is the Growing Kids God's Way materials by the Ezzos, who at one time were attending John MacArthur's church but I understand are now on the outs with them (and even publicly rebuked by JM or other church leaders for issues I can't remember). I was floored when I heard them teaching to teach the kids to not pray in Jesus' name until the kids were of age and had an appropriate conversion.



HooBoy... heard about those guys....they've crossed the line and gone into "cult-land"! Sad and scary...but typical for Evangellyfish method-teaching for kids. Ick!!



r.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Robin - Yes, although although I imagine that baptists would try to limit that to the Old Covenant as He was dealing with circumcized children. Of course the baptists on the board can express their own views.
> 
> The parenting materials I was speaking of is the Growing Kids God's Way materials by the Ezzos, who at one time were attending John MacArthur's church but I understand are now on the outs with them (and even publicly rebuked by JM or other church leaders for issues I can't remember). I was floored when I heard them teaching to teach the kids to not pray in Jesus' name until the kids were of age and had an appropriate conversion.



Wait, do they teach them to pray NOT in Jesus' name, or do they just not teach them to pray for anything but salvation yet?

Teaching them to pray for other concerns but NOT in Jesus' name seems pretty horrible... Obviously one can't pray to the Father without the Son as mediator.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

"Wait, do they teach them to pray NOT in Jesus' name, or do they just not teach them to pray for anything but salvation yet?

Teaching them to pray for other concerns but NOT in Jesus' name seems pretty horrible... Obviously one can't pray to the Father without the Son as mediator."

They teach the children to pray to the Father directly for other things (eg. help so and so recover from sickness). It is just that they are not supposed to pray in the name of Jesus. Yes, it is obviously bad.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

"I will teach my kids to beg Christ for a new heart that loves Him. Everything else can wait."

With respect, this is very sad.


----------



## Peters (Jul 27, 2005)

You think it's very sad that i will teach my kids that they need a new heart that loves Christ?


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

It is sad that you will not teach your kids to pray in the name of Jesus for all their needs.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> It is sad that you will not teach your kids to pray in the name of Jesus for all their needs.





Jesus rebuked His disciples for this very idea.


----------



## Peters (Jul 27, 2005)

> It is sad that you will not teach your kids to pray in the name of Jesus for all their needs.



Well, that's not what i said, was it? My point was that i will teach my kids to seek first the kingdon of God and His righteousness. Everything else can wait. This will be the order of things in my home.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

And did you also fully interview your wife to see if she had any experience at being a wife before you agreed to marry her?

You're asking the same thing of your children. You're asking them to be Christians before they're Christians.

Think in terms of the Proverbs. Did the father teach the son only after he showed signs of being a man of God? Or, did the father teach the son regardless of the experiential outcome.

Now, look at your children. Will you give them a snake instead of a fish or a stone instead of bread? Fathers who trust God for their children give the fish or the bread before the question is even asked. Fathers who trust God for their children aren't waiting until they show signs of hunger.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

"Well, that's not what i said, was it? My point was that i will teach my kids to seek first the kingdon of God and His righteousness. Everything else can wait. This will be the order of things in my home."

There will a time (perhaps indefinitely depending on the child) when you are not teaching your kids to pray in Jesus' name for all things (as opposed to just conversion). Only if you judge them to have a conversion experience will that broader teaching come (prayers other than for conversion). This time may never come, as the kids may never exhibit a sufficient conversion. 

I take it you do not have kids.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

Kevin raises broader issues that are equally important. If children of Christians are perceived as little heathen, what biblical doctrines should be taught them? As the natural mind (which it is assumed they have) cannot pereceive the things of God, it would seem fruitless to even bother teaching them things other than evangelistic messages. Further, Jesus taught not to cast our pearls before swine, or unbelievers. If children of believers are the children of Satan (the only alternative to being children of God) until conversion, should they be given the sacred things of God? Perhaps a consistent baptistic model would imply a duty to withhold the sacred Word from them. There are really lots of issues.

Most baptists I know (and I know many) thankfully just ignore most issues and treat their kids as covenantal kids about 75 percent of the way (there is still an emphasis on evangelizing children like they are heathen).


----------



## Robin (Jul 27, 2005)

If anyone wishes to train their child to either be atheist or a pharisee, avoid teaching them the concept in the Heidelberg of "guilt; grace; gratitude" --- cohesive and in that order as it is laid-out.

Teach them "Jesus loves them" and you miss the Gospel, indulging the inborn-bent to sin; teach "be careful little hands what you do" and they'll think salvation can be had by works--driving them to despair in this life, hell in the next.

What an awesome responsibility to train up our children in the WHOLE Word of the Lord! Being an effective teacher means being a faithful student. You cannot teach what you do not know. 

Here's an essay on the importance of catechism by Kim Riddlebarger:

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000065.shtml?main

Robin 

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 27, 2005)

Kevin,

I'm with you. Rampant individualism in the church in this country is to the point of nauseating. Father's relinquishing their roles. Too much focus on "am I saved", "did I get it right", "was that the correct experience". The very opposite of good works issuing forth from true saving faith and the very opposite of resting in Christ. 

Our pastor just two Sunday's ago set forth the importance of signs in the OT and by extension the NT so that the children of the next generation would ask, "What does this mean..." and the Israelites were to TEACH them, sounds an awful like discipling. But nope, we want them to have that ever elusive "conversion experience".

And the "conversion experience", oh boy, if I hear of that thing again. Too many people are assured by their conversion experience rather than Christ and are deluded. I had a close friend say that in the tone that as if one couldn't possibly be saved apart from the old conversion experience. I hated to tell them that IF that is what assures someone then their faith is not in Christ!

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 27, 2005)

Hey Marcos,

We agree strongly on a lot of things, this just isn´t one of them. I respect that!


> Quote:
> It is often argued by others that the covenantal view that includes children of believers fails to understand that God is dealing with His people in the NT in a much different way today.
> 
> 
> ...



I think we would agree here somewhat, yet Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The issue is how God dealing with His people, has that changed in its essence? Which was the point, the essence stays the same as long as it is professing adults OT and NT according to most in the credo camp, the group left out is the children of believers in the NT. The essence in dealing with His people here has changed, according to the credo camp, drastically.



> Quote:
> If in the OT both believing Jews (covenant people), hypocrites who were Cov. Peop., and children of the Cov. People ALL took part of the types and shadows (rounding the corner so speak before the Substance), they part-took of the shadows, then wouldn´t it be an extremely shocking thing that one of those three in that group would not partake in the Substance which was Christ?
> 
> 
> ...



You are stating the obvious regarding the inward/outward that has NEVER changed in ANY administration of the CoG, OT or NT. This was clearly true EVEN of the OT, yet the covenant members included children of believers. The NC did not better reveal this idea of rebirth as Christ clearly points out in the conversation, the NC does not "œbetter" reveal regeneration but revealed better WHOSE Shadow was cast, Christ"˜s or rather WHO cast the shadows. Thus, to suddenly change the covenant membership, changing the essence of the very same CoG found in the OT, without a strict command to do so is perilous at best. Recall Jesus conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 in which Jesus says very clearly to Nicodemus, "œJesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is <<<born again>>> <<<he cannot see the kingdom of God.">>> Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is <<<born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.>>> "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is <<<born of the Spirit is spirit.>>> <<<<<<<"Do not be amazed that I said to you>>>>>>>, 'You must be <<<born again.'>>> "The <<<wind blows where it wishes>>> and <<<you>>> hear the sound of it, but <<<<<do not know>>>> where it comes from and where it is going (so much for detecting regeneration); so is everyone who <<<is born of the Spirit.">>> Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered and said to him, <<<<<<<<"Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?>>>>>>> 



> Quote:
> If the infants of the covenant people enjoyed the grace and mercy of the shadows which were lesser so to speak, would it not be violence to in essence remove them symbolically in the Substance which is Christ, the new and better promises?
> 
> 
> ...



It indeed has always been a nation of faith OT and NT 1 Peter 2: 4-12. I couldn´t have said it better, nothing could be more clear! But the sign in the shadow pointed to the same thing as does the substance, NOT nationality (Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Lev. 26:41, Jer 4:4, 9:26, Eze 44:7, 9, Acts 7:51. The shadow was not a national race, that´s the error, the shadow was Christ! And both signs point to Christ. The NC does not make clear that we are no longer to apply the sign the way you describe, it has never been abrogated in the least. Taking the bible as a whole, the whole counsel of God and as Paul says in Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc"¦(speaking at a time when there was primarily only the OT because his very letter, NT, was penning that very statement) - in the whole of Scripture we see and I can point out to you but an <<explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, overt, clear without doubting>> command from God Himself to mark the children of the covenant people with the covenant sign, which in fact signifies regeneration and rebirth. But we do not see, as you state a "œclear" explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, overt, clear without doubting command ANYWHERE, OT or NT, to cease marking the children of believers into the covenant people. As a matter of fact Peter STILL says, "œthe promise is to you, your children and to all who are far off to whom the Lord our God will call."

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 27, 2005)

So much to post to.

Robin,

guilt; grace; gratitude - EXACTLY! In that order and crystal clear on each category without confussion or mixture.


----------



## Peters (Jul 28, 2005)

> The essence in dealing with His people here has changed, according to the credo camp, drastically.



God deals with fallen people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I´m sure we agree here and I´m glad about that too. 



> You are stating the obvious regarding the inward/outward that has NEVER changed in ANY administration of the CoG, OT or NT. This was clearly true EVEN of the OT, yet the covenant members included children of believers.



I didn´t mean to sate the obvious for the sake of it, I was just pointing out that *outward* only members of the covenants never partake of the *substance* which is Christ. That is to be regenerate and in the COG. I only pointed this out because you said: 



> If in the OT both believing Jews (covenant people), hypocrites who were Cov. Peop., and children of the Cov. People ALL took part of the types and shadows (rounding the corner so speak before the Substance), they part-took of the shadows, then wouldn´t it be an extremely shocking thing that one of those three in that group would not partake in the Substance which was Christ?





> The NC did not better reveal this idea of rebirth as Christ clearly points out in the conversation, the NC does not "œbetter" reveal regeneration but revealed better WHOSE Shadow was cast, Christ"˜s or rather WHO cast the shadows.



I disagree. I don´t think you can separate the person of Christ from the work of redemption. The shadows not only pointed to Christ Himself but also to all redemptive realities, which are revealed with far greater clarity in the NC administration of the GOG. Do you really not think that now God has spoken to us in His Son that there is not a greater clarity to the Gospel? Please understand that I´m not saying the Gospel can only now be understood. What I´m saying is that this side of the Cross it is *better* understood. 



> Thus, to suddenly change the covenant membership, changing the essence of the very same CoG found in the OT, without a strict command to do so is perilous at best.



Do you see now that I am not doing this? I do not equate temporal, historical covenant membership (AC, NC, etc.) with COG membership absolutely. I just think things become clearer through the covenants as redemptive history unfolds. 



> Recall Jesus conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 in which Jesus says very clearly to Nicodemus, "œJesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is <<<born again>>> <<<he cannot see the kingdom of God.">>> Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is <<<born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.>>> "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is <<<born of the Spirit is spirit.>>> <<<<<<<"Do not be amazed that I said to you>>>>>>>, 'You must be <<<born again.'>>> "The <<<wind blows where it wishes>>> and <<<you>>> hear the sound of it, but <<<<<do not know>>>> where it comes from and where it is going (so much for detecting regeneration); so is everyone who <<<is born of the Spirit.">>> Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered and said to him, <<<<<<<<"Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?>>>>>>>



But, brother, what are you saying, that Christ doesn´t manifest the glory of God in the Gospel in the NC a much fuller way? I´m not suggesting that the glory of the Gospel wasn´t there in older administrations, or even that it wasn´t seen and understood, but that it was veiled in a shadow. 



> But the sign in the shadow pointed to the same thing as does the substance, NOT nationality (Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Lev. 26:41, Jer 4:4, 9:26, Eze 44:7, 9, Acts 7:51



Of course it did. Circumcision was the very first thing that Paul appealed to prove his Jewishness (Phil 3:4-5). In the Abrahamic administration it pointed to the physical nation *and* to the substance, but to the substance *typologically*. Why still apply it according to the type when the substance has come? 



> The shadow was not a national race, that´s the error, the shadow was Christ!



The nation of Israel was a shadow of the nation of faith (1 Peters 2:4-5, Gal 6:16). Or, you could say, that Christ is Israel and the fulfilment of what the physical nation pointed to, and we are included in that fulfilment by virtue of our union to Christ by faith. Either way, the nation of Israel did function as a shadow, as a type.



> The NC does not make clear that we are no longer to apply the sign the way you describe, it has never been abrogated in the least.



It is very clear if you allow the New Testament to teach you how to understand the Old Testament. 



> we do not see, as you state a "œclear" explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, overt, clear without doubting command ANYWHERE, OT or NT, to cease marking the children of believers into the covenant people.



I don´t recall saying that anything was explicit, and you now as well as I do that there is no explicit command in the NT to baptise infants either. Does everything we believe have to be explicitly stated?



> As a matter of fact Peter STILL says, "œthe promise is to you, your children and to all who are far off to whom the Lord our God will call."



Sounds like everyone is in the same boat, doesn´t it?


Kevin



> And did you also fully interview your wife to see if she had any experience at being a wife before you agreed to marry her?



No. I just walked up to the first girl I saw in a church building and asked her to marry me.



> You're asking the same thing of your children. You're asking them to be Christians before they're Christians.



No. I´m asking them to *become* Christians before they are Christians. 



> Think in terms of the Proverbs. Did the father teach the son only after he showed signs of being a man of God? Or, did the father teach the son regardless of the experiential outcome.
> 
> Now, look at your children. Will you give them a snake instead of a fish or a stone instead of bread? Fathers who trust God for their children give the fish or the bread before the question is even asked. Fathers who trust God for their children aren't waiting until they show signs of hunger.



Has God broken His promise when "œcovenant children" die in their sins? 

What is it that will make God´s promise effectual for the children of believers? 

What is it that will make God´s promise effectual for the children of unbelievers?


Scott



> Kevin raises broader issues that are equally important. If children of Christians are perceived as little heathen, what biblical doctrines should be taught them? As the natural mind (which it is assumed they have) cannot pereceive the things of God, it would seem fruitless to even bother teaching them things other than evangelistic messages.



Maybe the problem is equating the Gospel with "œevangelistic messages". If you´re not teaching the Gospel when you teach the "œthings of God", then I don´t know what you´re teaching.


----------



## Scott (Jul 28, 2005)

"Maybe the problem is equating the Gospel with "œevangelistic messages". If you´re not teaching the Gospel when you teach the "œthings of God", then I don´t know what you´re teaching."

Marcos: The gospel is the good news of salvation. It is ok to give this to be given to unbelievers. To convey the gospel (say in a Mars Hill presentation, or as explained in Peter's sermon) you don't need to put the pearls of God's sacred truths before unbelievers, whom Christ calls swine, in order to convey to them the gospel. So, my point is if children of believers are understood to be little unbelievers (which the Bible equates with swine, children of the devil, poison trees, etc), then there needs to be some understanding of what justifies giving them God's pearls. Making a Pauline Mars Hill entreaty makes sense. Teaching them the pearls Christ was talking about may not. Until they convert, swine will just trample them.

Fortunately, most baptists (Ezzos excluded) I know simply ignore these sorts of things and just teach their kids like they are already Christians in many respects, although there is a heavy emphasis on a conversion experience.

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Peters (Jul 29, 2005)

> Marcos: The gospel is the good news of salvation. It is ok to give this to be given to unbelievers. To convey the gospel (say in a Mars Hill presentation, or as explained in Peter's sermon) you don't need to put the pearls of God's sacred truths before unbelievers, whom Christ calls swine, in order to convey to them the gospel. So, my point is if children of believers are understood to be little unbelievers (which the Bible equates with swine, children of the devil, poison trees, etc), then there needs to be some understanding of what justifies giving them God's pearls. Making a Pauline Mars Hill entreaty makes sense. Teaching them the pearls Christ was talking about may not. Until they convert, swine will just trample them.



Actually, "œgospel" just means "œgood news". I don´t point that out to be picky, Scott, but to illustrate that the biblical Gospel has definitions that are not exclusive to the salvation of human-sinful-beings. I could define the Gospel from Romans 3 as the "œgood news" that God´s justice is vindicated by the death of Christ (which, by the way, I think is the primary purpose of the Son´s work). And according to 2 Corinthians 4 when I teach (my kids) the glory of Christ and that He is Lord, I am teaching the Gospel. I'm sure you would agree that the Glory of Christ is not something that is bound exclusively to people's salvation. 



> Fortunately, most baptists (Ezzos excluded) I know simply ignore these sorts of things and just teach their kids like they are already Christians in many respects, although there is a heavy emphasis on a conversion experience.



I´m sorry, brother, but it just sounds like you´re saying the children of Christians are born Christians. I cannot stomach that.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Peters]


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

> Actually, "œgospel" just means "œgood news". I don´t point that out to be picky, Scott, but to illustrate that the biblical Gospel has definitions that are not exclusive to the salvation of human-sinful-beings. I could define the Gospel from Romans 3 as the "œgood news" that God´s justice is vindicated by the death of Christ (which, by the way, I think is the primary purpose of the Son´s work). And according to 2 Corinthians 4 when I teach (my kids) the glory of Christ and that He is Lord, I am teaching the Gospel. I'm sure you would agree that the Glory of Christ is not something that is bound exclusively to people's salvation.



However you want to define gospel, there are some divine doctrines and information about God that we are not supposed to provide to unbelievers. Christ says that giving these sacred truths to unbelievers is like giving pearls to swine who will trample them underfoot (and we should not do it).



> I´m sorry, brother, but it just sounds like you´re saying the children of Christians are born Christians. I cannot stomach that.



They are children of the covenant. We presume regeneration and faith (even dispositional faith) until they prove otherwise by word and deed. My guess is that when you have children you will naturally adopt a more covenantal view. You will experience that because of God's promises to you to bless your children, for all their flaws, they are not swine and the children of Satan (which is by virtue of you making them federally holy).  

Scott


----------



## Peters (Jul 29, 2005)

> However you want to define gospel, there are some divine doctrines and information about God that we are not supposed to provide to unbelievers. Christ says that giving these sacred truths to unbelievers is like giving pearls to swine who will trample them underfoot (and we should not do it).



Brother, you will have to tell me what these non-Gospel "sacred truths" and "divine doctrines" are that Christ had in mind. 



> They are children of the covenant.



Are they of the covenant because they are born of believers, or because they are baptised?



> We presume regeneration and faith (even dispositional faith) until they prove otherwise by word and deed.



I know, and this is what I can´t stomach. They are born and you think that they are Christians because you are. 



> My guess is that when you have children you will naturally adopt a more covenantal view. You will experience that because of God's promises to you to bless your children, for all their flaws, they are not swine and the children of Satan



I dunno, brother. I guess we´ll see.



> (which is by virtue of you making them federally holy)



No, no, no, i make them federally sinful, as my father made me, as his father made him, and as his father made him . . . as Adam made Cain :bigsmile:


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

You will come around.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 29, 2005)

Marcos,



> But, brother, what are you saying, that Christ doesn´t manifest the glory of God in the Gospel



You keep setting up this straw man and knocking him back down. Of course Christ manifest the GOSPEL in more full glory in the NT. That is so painfully obvious I'm shocked to even be replying to it. 

This is missing Christ's point to Nicodemas completely and worse confusing Gospel with regeneration which is a huge problem, a bad problem. The Gospel is PURELY the work of Christ - my sin imputed to Him and Him bearing the wrath due to me AND Christ living the righteous life I have not fulfilling the Law for me and this imputed to me. That's the Gospel, Good News. Regeneration, rebirth is a reality and true doctrine in and of itself, but it is not the GOOD NEWS or Gospel. It is good but it is not the Gospel. 

The Good NEWS as the term implies is an ANNOUNCEMENT that says, "the Great King and Creator of all that is has taken care of your sin and rebellion for you and given you HIS great riches - GRACE AND PEACE unto you." The fullest revelation of the NEW's was Christ placarded on the Cross before the eyes of the world. His crucifixion was more than the act itself, it was an announcement. Its literally Good News, that's why it brings the fruits of the Spirit Who testifies to Christ as Christ of love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, etc...because its Good News thus peace, its good news thus joy, its good news thus I can serve my neighbor without selfishly worrying how it will please God - Christ has done it all - just simply serve my neighbor now. The message, the announcement, the NEWS, the GOOD NEWS, the GOSPEL of what Christ did and the fuller revelation of it IS the miraculous message. Not regeneration or rebirth. 

Thus, to this Christ very Clearly was surprised that Nicodemas was confounded by the Spirit's SECRET work of rebirth. Christ was not surprised because Nicodemas had not yet seen the fulfillment of the promise as Christ had not yet revealed that in His passion, crucifixion, burial, ressurection, rising, and assension. That was yet to come. 

And If the work of rebirth by the Holy Spirit is secret, then it cannot very well be news, let alone the Good News, that necessarily follows. The reality and doctrine of it is true, but the work is of the Holy Spirit alone.

Hence, in the NT the GLORY of the Gospel shadows in the OT are GREATER revealed in the NT. Those shadows that pointed forward to Christ (in time) or backward to the reality (in logical progression) if you will, became fulfilled. The Temple sacrifices pointing forth that NO sin will be forgiven except by the shedding of blood, Christ, the Messiahs. The Gospel, Good News is that the One promised in Genesis 3:15 has MANIFESTED Himself fully rather than by shadow and type. The King has arrived and removed His mask.

All were brought partake of the shadows in the OT pointing forward and all still are brought to the fuller revelation, the substance. The Substance is Christ, not regeneration.

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 29, 2005)

> I know, and this is what I can´t stomach. They are born and you think that they are Christians because you are



But this was the faith of Abraham, the father of our faith. Keep that in mind as you are bothered by it. It's not about works, it's about faith/trust in the promises of God, not my children being Christians because they are MY children and deserve some reward for that, not because I "do" some work baptism or otherwise that obligates God otherwise.

No, but because God has indicated to me in His word that this is His promise. Since it is His promise who am I or you for that matter to deny God. I just take His promise by, yes, faith - the exact same faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had. There are not two kinds of faith - OT & NT. 

You have a good strong grasp of Gospel, true Gospel, that much you and I battle together on because quite frankly many confuse it too much today. But that Gospel was the same then, OT, as it is now, NT...just, or should be at least, more clear!

Ldh


----------



## Peters (Jul 31, 2005)

> You keep setting up this straw man and knocking him back down. Of course Christ manifests the GOSPEL in more full glory in the NT. That is so painfully obvious I'm shocked to even be replying to it.



But you said:



> The NC did not better reveal this idea of rebirth as Christ clearly points out in the conversation, the NC does not "œbetter" reveal regeneration but revealed better WHOSE Shadow was cast, Christ"˜s or rather WHO cast the shadows.



...that´s why I responded with:



> But, brother, what are you saying, that Christ doesn´t manifest the glory of God in the Gospel in the NC a much fuller way? I´m not suggesting that the glory of the Gospel wasn´t there in older administrations, or even that it wasn´t seen and understood, but that it was veiled in a shadow.



Regeneration is a redemptive concept that it a part of the Gospel and Christ´s redemptive work. You cannot say that regeneration was as clearly understood under the Abrahamic administration as it is now under the NC. That´s all I was pointing out. It wasn´t a straw-man, because I was responding in direct disagreement to something you wrote. 



> All were brought partake of the shadows in the OT pointing forward and all still are brought to the fuller revelation, the substance. The Substance is Christ, not regeneration.



Yes the substance is Christ, no one is disputing that. But because regeneration is a redemptive reality of the Gospel, it also is veiled in a shadow and was revealed more fully when Christ was revealed; simply look at how the circumcision of the flesh is likened to the circumcision of the heart in the New Testament.


----------



## Peters (Jul 31, 2005)

> But this was the faith of Abraham, the father of our faith. Keep that in mind as you are bothered by it. It's not about works, it's about faith/trust in the promises of God, not my children being Christians because they are MY children and deserve some reward for that, not because I "do" some work baptism or otherwise that obligates God otherwise.
> 
> No, but because God has indicated to me in His word that this is His promise. Since it is His promise who am I or you for that matter to deny God. I just take His promise by, yes, faith - the exact same faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had. There are not two kinds of faith - OT & NT.



Has God broken His promise when "œcovenant children" die in their sins? 

What is it that will make God´s promise effectual for the children of believers? 

What is it that will make God´s promise effectual for the children of unbelievers?



> But that Gospel was the same then, OT, as it is now, NT...just, or should be at least, more clear!



Straw-man


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 31, 2005)

Marcos,



> Regeneration is a redemptive concept that it a part of the Gospel and Christ´s redemptive work. You cannot say that regeneration was as clearly understood under the Abrahamic administration as it is now under the NC.



I'm not going to beat this to death, but I might have to get at least a lick or two more in. Regeneration is not part of the the Gospel as in the theological Gospel and there is where you are making a huge mistake. The Gospel is simply the news and the announcement of Christ's work and NOTHING else, zero, nada. I will never move off of that nor am I ashamed of the Gospel. I'm actually surprised given your other posts and strong grasp of the Gospel otherwise - that you don't see this. Truly, because you've strongly defended there, refreshingly so compared to some.

To mingle it, regeneration, with the Gospel IS to confuse Law and Gospel, and cause all sorts of problems by calling something Gospel that is not Gospel at all. The Gospel is a type of Divine speech, a Word of Salvation spoken to us about what Christ did not a word about regeneration (though a true doctrine).

Finally, Christ Himself seems to disagree with your assessment of rebirth in the OT as is clear by His astonishment toward Nicodemas being a teacher and not understanding this. These texts clearly show that in the OT THIS was VERY much understood especially given the sign of circumcision and its true meaning which is why I gave these texts: Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Lev. 26:41, Jer 4:4, 9:26, Eze 44:7, 9 Do you not understand that these OLD TESTAMENT passages are directly speaking to regeneration/rebirth? Hence, Christ incredulity toward Nicodemas as a teacher.

So, as God's word reveals (these texts above to mention a few on circumcision of the heart, eyes, ears - ALL about regeneration/rebirth) not only can I say that regeneration was as clearly understood under the Abrahamic administration as it is now under the NC - I must if I adhere to the word of God at all.

Becareful of pietism that inverts the emphasis onto the subjective (my doing) from the objective (Gospel) whereby it seeks to please God and assure self of salvation, and using scripture in order to up hold it. When its all said and done the pietism is hidden in the water for the credo. And your emphasis on regeneration as Gospel proves this.

Ldh


----------



## Robin (Jul 31, 2005)

Preach it, Larry!!

Robin

Behold....the foolishness of The Gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and *by which* you are being saved, *if* you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that *Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures*, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


----------



## Robin (Jul 31, 2005)

For anyone doubting that the Gospel was the same in the OT....read carefully:

Luke 24:13--27

On the Road to Emmaus

That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, "What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?" And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see." And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. 

Robin


----------



## Peters (Aug 1, 2005)

> I'm not going to beat this to death, but I might have to get at least a lick or two more in. Regeneration is not part of the Gospel as in the theological Gospel and there is where you are making a huge mistake. The Gospel is simply the news and the announcement of Christ's work and NOTHING else, zero, nada.



Larry, I thoroughly understand this. Look at what I posted earlier in this thread to Scott.



> Actually, "œgospel" just means "œgood news". I don´t point that out to be picky, Scott, but to illustrate that the biblical Gospel has definitions that are not exclusive to the salvation of human-sinful-beings. I could define the Gospel from Romans 3 as the "œgood news" that God´s justice is vindicated by the death of Christ (which, by the way, I think is the primary purpose of the Son´s work). And according to 2 Corinthians 4 when I teach (my kids) the glory of Christ and that He is Lord, I am teaching the Gospel. I'm sure you would agree that the Glory of Christ is not something that is bound exclusively to people's salvation.





> I will never move off of that nor am I ashamed of the Gospel.



And it is good to hear that, brother. May God´s grace sustain you. 



> I'm actually surprised given your other posts and strong grasp of the Gospel otherwise - that you don't see this. Truly, because you've strongly defended there, refreshingly so compared to some.



As far as it is possible, I hope you will hold me accountable to any solid profession I´ve made. 



> Finally, Christ Himself seems to disagree with your assessment of rebirth in the OT as is clear by His astonishment toward Nicodemas being a teacher and not understanding this. These texts clearly show that in the OT THIS was VERY much understood especially given the sign of circumcision and its true meaning which is why I gave these texts: Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Lev. 26:41, Jer 4:4, 9:26, Eze 44:7, 9 Do you not understand that these OLD TESTAMENT passages are directly speaking to regeneration/rebirth? Hence, Christ incredulity toward Nicodemas as a teacher.
> 
> So, as God's word reveals (these texts above to mention a few on circumcision of the heart, eyes, ears - ALL about regeneration/rebirth) not only can I say that regeneration was as clearly understood under the Abrahamic administration as it is now under the NC - I must if I adhere to the word of God at all.



Larry, no one is saying that it wasn´t there or even that it wasn´t clear, but that it wasn´t *as* clear. This is the whole point of a redemptive story that moves forward; it unfolds and matures. It is actually all there in the Garden, but don´t tell me that Adam understood the Gospel and it´s redemptive realities the way John the Baptist did, or the way Paul did, or even the way *you* do. That´s not how God has set up and planned redemptive history. 

The point is that *all* redemptive realities are clearer in this (NC) administration of the Covenant of Grace. Do you agree? 



> Be careful of pietism that inverts the emphasis onto the subjective (my doing) from the objective (Gospel) whereby it seeks to please God and assure self of salvation, and using scripture in order to up hold it. When its all said and done the pietism is hidden in the water for the credo. And your emphasis on regeneration as Gospel proves this.



This is not my emphasis. My emphasis depends on where I´m reading in the Scriptures.


----------



## Peters (Aug 1, 2005)

> For anyone doubting that the Gospel was the same in the OT....



 IT  HAS  ALWAYS  BEEN  THE  SAME


----------

