# Practical Outworking of CT In Childrearing



## Imputatio

When comparing the different ways that children are viewed/considered within the paedobaptist and credobaptist systems, could you share how this affects things in day to day practice? Is there a substantive difference?

Also, one thing I am struggling with as a RB is how to talk to my kids about their personal salvation and relationship with God, not wanting to give them a false sense of security, but at the same time not wanting to discourage them. 

Any advice?

Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist

Although I am tempted to say it is as easy as saying paedobaptists speak to their children as if they are covenantally holy (which they are), it's not always as clear cut as that. John Gerstner in his Church History lectures came very close to seeing covenant kids as reprobate until proven otherwise.

The Federal vision types early on presumed that the children were already regenerate. That's going to far. It's best just to presume God's covenant promises that were signed as sealed. 

As to specifics, I'll see what others say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor

In theory, paedobaptists are trying to teach their children what to believe about God and how to live before him. They teach them what it means to live by faith in Christ, and that God had made promises to them which they must embrace by faith. Regarding actual regeneration, it doesn't really matter when that happens as far as child rearing goes. If they are already regenerate, then you are nurturing them in the faith. If they are unregenerate, then you are preparing them for faith, so they will know what to do whenever they realize they are finally regenerate. But as for nuts and bolts of parenting, I'm not sure there's a practical difference between paedo vs. credo other than paedo's will presume that children are officially part of the church whereas credo's tend to wait until their is a distinct conversion experience or profession before officially including them in the church. But even there, both are practically raising their children as part of the Christian community.

But even more practically speaking, the example of your own upbringing probably has the most influence on your own parenting (for good or ill), not your stated theology. Your parenting reflexes were trained by your own parents/gaurdians and reinforced by your personality. Even if you have the theology correct in your head, the trials of life push you to your default training. And it takes time and reflection to bring your own parenting skills into line with your stated theology, especially if you are coming from a non-Reformed tradition. We could say the same about marriage roles and expectations as well.

Just my two cents...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

I assume we mean child rearing, not child bearing? Otherwise we might have to have paedobaptist midwives?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.

We have this:

_Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord._
Ephesians 6:4

Do that.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Imputatio

Charles Johnson said:


> I assume we mean child rearing, not child bearing? Otherwise we might have to have paedobaptist midwives?


Title says childrearing!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.
> 
> We have this:
> 
> _Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord._
> Ephesians 6:4
> 
> Do that.


I have a feeling some on the other side will disagree.


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.
> 
> We have this:
> 
> _Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord._
> Ephesians 6:4
> 
> Do that.


"In the Lord"

If Paul wrote the letter to the church in Ephasus, and the letter addresses the believers in said fellowship, wouldn't that mean that the children he is referring to (born or otherwise) belong to the church as well?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have a feeling some on the other side will disagree.


I agree with him. Your question was asking is there is any _practical_ difference. In terms of childrearing, I would say no. Presbyterians and Baptists alike, when they have children, involve them in the worship of the church, teach them in the home, and exhort them in the gospel, encouraging them to trust in and embrace Christ for themselves. Now, there are _theological_ differences, of course. I would argue that Presbyterians and Baptists have a fundamentally different view of their children in some regards, but the _practical_ outworking seems largely if not entirely the same.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

Practical difference - I see to it that my children are baptized.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Taylor

Romans922 said:


> Practical difference - I see to it that my children are baptized.


Yes, I was going to mention that as really the one practical difference, but failed to.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> "In the Lord"
> 
> If Paul wrote the letter to the church in Ephasus, and the letter addresses the believers in said fellowship, wouldn't that mean that the children he is referring to (born or otherwise) belong to the church as well?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



Not the topic of this thread.


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Not the topic of this thread.


I think it is. Paul mentioned children in the letter. Childrearing ultimately belongs to God and is delagated to us. We are stewards of His creation.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

Personally, I wasn't overly impressed with Malone's _Baptism of Disciples Alone_, but one line has always stuck with me: "Paedobaptists seem to think Baptists leave their children in the parking lot when they go to church."

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager

I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises _to me_. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart _by God, for God. _I was also never told, even once, that as a _holy child_ and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.

Reactions: Like 15 | Love 2 | Amen 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim

De Jager said:


> I was never, even once, told...


This was my experience, as well, and I agree (to include your final sentence).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

De Jager said:


> I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.
> 
> The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises _to me_. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.
> 
> I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart _by God, for God. _I was also never told, even once, that as a _holy child_ and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.
> 
> My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.
> 
> Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.
> 
> With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.


That’s something to chew on. Thank you.


----------



## Romans678

De Jager said:


> I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.
> 
> The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises _to me_. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.
> 
> I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart _by God, for God. _I was also never told, even once, that as a _holy child_ and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.
> 
> My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.
> 
> Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.
> 
> With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.


This is what is pushing me to the other side. I believe my children are distinct from the world in that God would allow them to be born in a Christian home. That has to count for something. God seeks godly offspring, but we treat our children as though they deserve to be outside the camp away from the assembly (to put it in Ancient Israel terms).

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Forgive me if my way of speaking is off-putting. It's difficult for me to express the nuances of human emotion over text. I can sometimes sound disgruntled and angry, when in reality I am simply being inquisitive. God bless.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## A.Joseph

De Jager said:


> I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.
> 
> The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises _to me_. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.
> 
> I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart _by God, for God. _I was also never told, even once, that as a _holy child_ and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.
> 
> My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.
> 
> Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.
> 
> With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.


That was well said and an edifying reminder for me, thanks!


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.
> 
> The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises _to me_. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.
> 
> I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart _by God, for God. _I was also never told, even once, that as a _holy child_ and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.
> 
> My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.
> 
> Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.
> 
> With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.


This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
> Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
> We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.


Love this explanation. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins

Practically speaking, there most definitely is a difference. Izaak's eloquent post points out some of the differences. In answer to Ben, I would say that although you are correct in saying that the particular parents make a huge difference, I would respond by saying that Baptist theology does not inherently lend itself to covenantal modes of speaking to children, because of how that mindset views children. 

If paedo households have a tendency to err on the presumptive regeneration side (though I don't see this too often, actually, since the FV error is a rather small minority in Reformed circles), credo households have a tendency to err on the presumptive pagan side. The FV error will assume children are regenerate until proven otherwise. The credo error (yes, I see it as an error) will tend to assume children are not regenerate. I think it unwise to assume _either situation_. It is right to tell our children of the covenantal promises. It is also right to tell them that the covenantal promises consist in the gospel, that if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they are saved, and they then need to live out that identity in Christ. 

Ultimately, we always need to share the gospel, because we always need the gospel, and the best families in both paedo and credo families will do this. To paedo families, I recommend, in addition to catechism and family worship, that they press home the covenantal promises to seek to make sure the children have not only understood, but also believe (knowing that only God converts sinners' hearts, so no manipulation!). To credos, I urge them to believe their children if they say, even at a very young age that they believe in Jesus. Do not make the mistake of thinking that a believable profession can only happen at a mythical age of accountability, or at least "older." You will quite possibly teach believing children to doubt their faith, and this can create lifelong problems.

Reactions: Like 8 | Edifying 1 | Amen 2


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
> Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
> We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.


I never said that my parents weren't pointing me to Christ. They were, all the time, and for that I am eternally indebted. What they _didn't do _was tell me that God had a special interest in me, by virtue of the very fact that he had placed me in a covenant home. Because of this, and because of my own sinful stupidity, I had no concept of the fact that God had made a claim upon my life, and that it was my duty and obligation to respond in faith and repentance. I also dealt with an extreme lack of assurance of God's willingness to save me, which I believe could have been alleviated if I had known of his covenant mercies that were toward me already. So in summary, I don't think my parents failed, I just think that they were consistent. They didn't believe that I was a member of God's covenant and a specific recipient of God's promises, and it showed in the lack of emphasis on these subjects.

Secondly, the comfort that you describe from the LBCF is a far cry from what is presented in the Canons of Dort, but admittedly similar in thrust to the WCF. The idea of "they are in heaven if they are elect" is essentially no comfort whatsoever. That provides no practical comfort to the parents because the parents have no basis on which to conclude that God's mercy was to their specific child. A reformed person however, more specifically someone who subscribes to the Canons of Dort, would be comforted that their child is indeed with the Lord. So the comfort is not nearly the same.

_Canons 1.17 "We must judge concerning the will of God from his Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents.1 Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.2"_

Whether you believe the above article or not is one thing, but one cannot argue that it presents a much stronger level of comfort to grieving parents than what is presented in the LBCF (or the WCF for that matter). This, as mentioned, is a practical difference, for at least some reformed families. Even those who subscribe to the WCF, I would contend, have a stronger basis for deriving comfort in the horrible scenario of the loss of an infant, purely because they believe that their children are members of God's covenant of Grace, which is a very significant detail. The baptist has no basis to believe that his child is a member of the CoG until professing faith which evidences regeneration. Until then, they are bound to assume that their child is not a member of this covenant, but only the covenant of works.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## hammondjones

De Jager said:


> What they _didn't do _was tell me that God had a special interest in me, by virtue of the very fact that he had placed me in a covenant home. Because of this, and because of my own sinful stupidity, I had no concept of the fact that God had made a claim upon my life, and that it was my duty and obligation to respond in faith and repentance.


Right.


Child: "Dad, am I a Christian?"

This question is answered differently in the two systems. (And frankly, the meaning of the word "Christian" is different, too. )

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans922

hammondjones said:


> Right.
> 
> 
> Child: "Dad, am I a Christian?"
> 
> This question is answered differently in the two systems. (And frankly, the meaning of the word "Christian" is different, too. )



Mt. 28 - the Presbyterian's child is a disciple of Christ, and is thus baptized. I'd assume, if being consistent with their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and is thus not baptized. Otherwise if a disciple, they would be baptized.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

De Jager said:


> Until then, they are bound to assume that their child is not a member of this covenant, but only the covenant of works.



This is terrifying. I can't imagine Noah shutting the doors on his sons and their wives. Or Isreal placing the lambs blood on every door post and placing the child OUTSIDE of the home. Or the Isrealites leaving their children in Egypt...I could go on but I wont.

This is starting to make sense to me each more and more each passing. God help us.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Romans922 said:


> Mt. 28 - the Presbyterian's child is a disciple of Christ, and is thus baptized. I'd assume, if being consistent with their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and is thus not baptized. Otherwise if a disciple, they would be baptized.


Baptize to disciple. Disciple to teach. Teach to observe. Am I hitting the mark?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans922

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Baptize to disciple. Disciple to teach. Teach to observe. Am I hitting the mark?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Mt. 28 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT). 

But the inconsistent baptist will withhold baptism and yet still teach their child the Word.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Romans678

Romans922 said:


> Mt. 28 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
> 
> Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT).
> 
> But the inconsistent baptist will withhold baptism and yet still teach their child the Word.


Roger that. I understand. Thank you!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins

Romans922 said:


> Mt. 28 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
> 
> Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT).
> 
> But the inconsistent baptist will withhold baptism and yet still teach their child the Word.


Amen. I do give thanks regularly for my _inconsistent _Baptist friends!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

I fully agree with the definition of a disciple reflected in this Wikipedia article. There isn't really any _serious_ room for doubt that in the ancient world a "disciple" was a determined follower, not just a passive recipient of information.

You don't just make a disciple by baptizing. You make a disciple by TEACHING. Then, when such a one is a disciple, you baptize them.

So, no, infants and toddlers are _not_ disciples just because they've been rhantized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I fully agree with the definition of a disciple reflected in this Wikipedia article. There isn't really any _serious_ room for doubt that in the ancient world a "disciple" was a determined follower, not just a passive recipient of information.
> 
> You don't just make a disciple by baptizing. You make a disciple by TEACHING. Then, when such a one is a disciple, you baptize them.
> 
> So, no, infants and toddlers are _not_ disciples just because they've been rhantized.
> 
> View attachment 8880


Wiki, any dictionary, and quite frankly any lexicon does not determine the definition of a disciple in Scripture. The Scriptures alone define it. Mt. 28 is clear how one is made a disciple - by baptizing and teaching the Word of God to them. No one here said that a disciple is made by baptizing alone. It is by baptism and teaching the Word of God. Besides this, look at your wiki definition, "imitated both the life and teaching of the master". Yes, that's what children do, they imitate their parents, imitate those they are around (in fellowship with the Church). And children of believers are fully to be an 'apprentice' following after the undershepherd as they follow after Christ. But again, wiki is not where we get our definitions.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> You don't just make a disciple by baptizing.


Of course, this is a bare assertion based on a theological presupposition, not an argument. In Matthew 28, the so-called "Great Commission," Jesus' only imperative is to make disciples (μαθητεύσατε). What comes next is a participle of _means_—you make disciples "_by_ baptizing them" (βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς) _and _"teaching them" (διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

Romans922 said:


> Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT).





greenbaggins said:


> Amen.



This interpretation is, in my opinion, untenable, as it suggests _only_ those who are baptized are to be taught. That is contrary to every example of evangelism in the Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Phil D. said:


> This interpretation is, in my opinion, silly, as it suggests _only_ those who are baptized are to be taught. That is contrary to every example of evangelism in the Bible.


Unless you are talking about covenantal children, in which case it is in accord with every example of child evangelism in the Bible.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Phil D.

greenbaggins said:


> Unless you are talking about covenantal children, in which case it is in accord with every example of child evangelism in the Bible.


As I've layed out in other posts, I would say that assertion is far from proven in Scripture -- and the verse being exegeted here certainly does not focus strictly on covenant children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Phil D. said:


> As I've layed out in other posts, I would say that assertion is far from proven in Scripture -- and the verse being exegeted here certainly does not focus strictly on covenant children.


It doesn't focus strictly on believing adults either... I.e. it is broad for a reason. As a general principle of how to make disciples.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I fully agree with the definition of a disciple reflected in this Wikipedia article. There isn't really any _serious_ room for doubt that in the ancient world a "disciple" was a determined follower, not just a passive recipient of information.
> 
> You don't just make a disciple by baptizing. You make a disciple by TEACHING. Then, when such a one is a disciple, you baptize them.
> 
> So, no, infants and toddlers are _not_ disciples just because they've been rhantized.
> 
> View attachment 8880


Good point, brother. But how do we initialize the discipleship process? That would be baptism right? 

I mean these comments in love BTW. I can admit, my typing voice online may come off harsh at time. I mean no harm. Blessings.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

Romans922 said:


> It doesn't focus strictly on believing adults either... I.e. it is broad for a reason. As a general principle of how to make disciples.


OK, so speaking of consistency, according to your universalist interpretation events like the Baptism of Kiev should be commended as best keeping The Great Commission, regardless of the fact that they are historical aberrations and and almost universally disapproved of by confessional Reformed theologians, but rather seen as a certain road to nominal Christianity.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I fully agree with the definition of a disciple reflected in this Wikipedia article. There isn't really any _serious_ room for doubt that in the ancient world a "disciple" was a determined follower, not just a passive recipient of information.
> 
> You don't just make a disciple by baptizing. You make a disciple by TEACHING. Then, when such a one is a disciple, you baptize them.


Judas was a disciple. As a former Reformed Baptist myself, I have often thought that our Lord had Judas as one of his disciples to remind the church of the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Phil D.

In retrospect I have amended the word "silly" that I used in a previous post, as it would often be seen as having a derogatory nuance. My apologies to the two Reverends it was in relation to. My intent is better reflected in my amended vocabulary "untenable".


----------



## De Jager

Stephen L Smith said:


> Judas was a disciple. As a former Reformed Baptist myself, I have often thought that our Lord had Judas as one of his disciples to remind the church of the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant.


Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (John 6:70)

An absolutely fascinating verse. Jesus _knew _Judas was a tare, and yet we find no indication that he thought of Judas as anything other than a disciple. Could it be argued that Judas had "professed faith"? I suppose so, although Christ certainly knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was not legitimate. And yet Judas is still considered a disciple.

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him." (John 6:66)

Again, you can argue that these people have professed faith, but you cannot argue that Jesus also didn't know that they weren't true believers. And yet, they are called disciples. Why? Because that's what they were.

I am no Greek scholar, but from my understanding, a disciple is a "pupil" or a "learner". If you are a disciple, you sit at someone's feet and listen. This is exactly what our children do. Do they do that of their own accord? Hopefully eventually they do, and many do from a very young age. But at the very least, we as parents bring our children to Jesus, and set them at his feet to learn from him, and so that he might bless them. (Mark 10:13-16).

_"And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."_

A most precious thought, indeed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## De Jager

greenbaggins said:


> Unless you are talking about covenantal children, in which case it is in accord with every example of child evangelism in the Bible.


At the end of the day, we really have to be willing to admit that children of believers is a "special case". They are called "holy" by God. The heathen person who happens to hear a street preacher, or takes part in an evangelism class, is not called "holy". We didn't choose for it to be this way, that's just what the Bible teaches.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Puritan Sailor said:


> If they are unregenerate, then you are preparing them for faith, so they will know what to do whenever they realize they are finally regenerate.





greenbaggins said:


> Ultimately, we always need to share the gospel, because we always need the gospel, and the best families in both paedo and credo families will do this.


Patrick and Lane, I appreciate the balance here. Some years ago in a neighbouring city, a Reformed Baptist family attended a confessional paedobaptist Reformed church in the city. They enjoyed a meal with a paedobaptist family - the father was an elder in the church. The paedobaptist elder told the Reformed Baptist family he could not evangelise his children because the children were 'in the covenant'. Because of this the Reformed Baptist family left the Reformed paedobaptist church and started a Reformed Baptist church.

In other words it is right and proper to believe children in confessional Reformed churches are in the covenant but it is equally important parents continually proclaim the gospel to their children. Both Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10-11 are very important in this regard. See also the WCF ch 15. The paedobaptist elder in New Zealand who would not evangelise his children was Biblically and confessionally wrong.

Herman Bavinck's book 'Saved by Grace: The Holy Spirit's Work in Calling and Regeneration' is very helpful regarding this balance.


----------



## Taylor

Limiting the concept of "disciple" to a "_determined_ follower" is far too narrow a definition and seems to me to be quite arbitrary and a case of special pleading, to the point where it contradicts common human experience. Children are their parents' disciples from the day of their birth. Sure, they are not conscious of it, nor are they yet willing or determined, but they are being taught and are thus disciples regardless. Students in a classroom, though not always _determined_ disciples, are disciples nonetheless. As has already been noted, one of the original Twelve, though a known reprobate from the beginning, was called by the Teacher a disciple. There is nothing in Scripture or human experience that we should add an aspect of _determination _to the definition of "disciple."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Taylor said:


> Limiting the concept of "disciple" to a "_determined_ follower" is far too narrow a definition and seems to me to be quite arbitrary and a case of special pleading, to the point where it contradicts common human experience. Children are their parents' disciples from the day of their birth. Sure, they are not conscious of it, nor are they yet willing or determined, but they are being taught and are thus disciples regardless. Students in a classroom, though not always _determined_ disciples, are disciples nonetheless. As has already been noted, one of the original Twelve, though a known reprobate from the beginning, was called by the Teacher a disciple. There is nothing in Scripture or human experience that we should add an aspect of _determination _to the definition of "disciple."


I would agree. Furthermore, we noted that in the great commission, a disciple is someone who is taught and marked by baptism. But I can't see anything in the text that would indicate that those two prerequisites must happen in a specific order or that they must happen exactly at the same time.

In the case of our children, they are baptized and then taught from their youngest age.

In the case of a heathen person, they are taught, and then baptized upon a profession of faith.

In both cases, they are baptized and taught, and in both cases they are disciples.


----------



## A.Joseph

This is obviously relevant, and I believe, very well said….



Baptism as a Seal

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Our children are going to be baptized one way or another: by the world (music, movies, etc) or by the ministers in the church. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Romans922 said:


> Wiki, any dictionary, and quite frankly any lexicon does not determine the definition of a disciple in Scripture. The Scriptures alone define it. Mt. 28 is clear how one is made a disciple - by baptizing and teaching the Word of God to them. No one here said that a disciple is made by baptizing alone. It is by baptism and teaching the Word of God. Besides this, look at your wiki definition, "imitated both the life and teaching of the master". Yes, that's what children do, they imitate their parents, imitate those they are around (in fellowship with the Church). And children of believers are fully to be an 'apprentice' following after the undershepherd as they follow after Christ. But again, wiki is not where we get our definitions.



I did not say, "I learned this definition of disciple from Wikipedia", nor did I say, "I believe this because Wikipedia says it".

I said that I _agree_ with the definition provided. Meaning, I know what disciple means, and the Wikipedia article happens to articulate it well.

I shared the Wikipedia because it stated the issue more clearly than I would have been able to on my own.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor said:


> Limiting the concept of "disciple" to a "_determined_ follower" is far too narrow a definition ...



This is really a naked assertion. It's YOUR opinion, not borne out by history.


----------



## Miss Marple

If I may speak as a mom of several covenant children. . .

Yes, I presume my children are Christians. The alternative is to presume they are not. That is a major difference, I think, between covenant theology and non covenant theology. 

A presumption is going to be made. I presume that the neighbor kids are not Christians - although I hope, pray and witness with hope of their conversion. I presume my kids are believers - although I know that sometimes covenant children end up denying Christ.

Knowing Muslim families, I consider their children Muslim. There are Buddhists in my neighborhood. They have Buddhist children. I am a Christian. I have Christian children. What else would they be?

I would not baptize a known unbeliever. Nor would I require them under my authority to pray (to a God they don't believe in?) or worship a God that they deny. I would not require them to read the Bible, etc. Yet we required these things of our children as a matter of course. Because we are a Christian family. That is our identity. Until and if a child credibly denies the faith, I assume they are of the household of faith, and communicate accordingly. Part of this discipling involves teaching basic Christian doctrine, for example the catechism. Not as to a rebel, but as to a covenant child. "These promises are yours. This is our faith. Jesus is our Savior."

It bothers me to think that this is considered to be somehow "federal vision." I don't think that's what we are. We don't believe our kids are saved no matter what. There is an age of accountability and a requirement that they, themselves, exercise their faith consciously.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Miss Marple said:


> If I may speak as a mom of several covenant children. . .
> 
> Yes, I presume my children are Christians. The alternative is to presume they are not.



That's the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third way, and that's to treat them as if they _might be_ believers. That, to me, is the right way.

My daughter _might_ be a believer. It's my job to train her up in the faith in the hope that she will one day believe.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

It’s entering the church. It’s admittance. That’s where the living word is preached. I think that’s how the Bible speaks of baptism. It’s actually very simple. Jesus saves. Where is he preached? Where do his people assemble? It needn’t be overthought.

We are part of the Body of Christ!



There’s an OPC near you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Miss Marple said:


> Knowing Muslim families, I consider their children Muslim. There are Buddhists in my neighborhood. They have Buddhist children. I am a Christian. I have Christian children. What else would they be?



Good point. It appears we may be the only group "Christians" that make distinctions between us and our children. I cannot wrap my head around this. 

They have my face, live in my home, eat with me, laugh with me, pray with me, cry with me, even have my last name. They are "Me Vol. 2". What shall I call them? I dare not call them "other" and treat them like they are to be "outside", know what I mean?

On the other hand, Federal Vision teaches the presumption of regeneration until proven otherwise (or so I've heard). I don't think that is the standard reformed view by a long shot. As far as I know that is a dangerous error we are to avoid like the plague. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> My daughter _might_ be a believer. It's my job to train her up in the faith in the hope that she will one day believe.



This is good.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

A.Joseph said:


> It’s entering the church. It’s admittance. That’s where the living word is preached. I think that’s how the Bible speaks of baptism. It’s actually very simple. Jesus saves. Where is he preached? Where do his people assemble? It needn’t be overthought.
> 
> We are part of the Body of Christ!
> 
> 
> 
> There’s an OPC near you!


This is how I see it. Is that wrong? Does seeing baptism as admittance make me not a Baptist? Can my Baptist brothers help me on this? 

I genuinely don't know any other way to see baptism. It's the start. The beginning. The identifier. The stamp on the hand so to speak. Is there another way to see it?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Our children are going to be baptized one way or another: by the world (music, movies, etc) or by the ministers in the church.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


By "our" I mean children of believers, not just mine for clarification purposes. 

Postponing it only makes them vulnerable to the world's ideological identifiers and marks. Don't believe me? Take a look at the current landscape. Our children are being inundated by everything under the sun. I won't spend this time listing the dangers but you get the idea.

Why spend 5-10 years telling them they are "not" when we can spend the same amount of time teaching them about God's promises and love for them as children of believers?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is really a naked assertion. It's YOUR opinion, not borne out by history.


They why has the vast, vast, vast majority of the church throughout history been paedobaptist, understanding Matt. 28:19-20 the way I explained above?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> They why has the vast, vast, vast majority of the church throughout history been paedobaptist, understanding Matt. 28:19-20 the way I explained above?


Taylor, we love the same covenant theology and worship in sister churches, but I must insist on a caution. Do you want to include the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church as part of your argument. I do regret one of my former arguments, as a former Reformed Baptist, that Infant Baptism 'logically' leads us away from the Reformation and towards Rome. I regret my former view. Remember, you are discussing this with a Baptist.

I think it is better to say the "vast, vast, vast majority of confessionally Reformed churchs, post Reformation, have been paedobaptist, understanding Matt. 28:19-20 the way I explained above?


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor, we love the same covenant theology and worship in sister churches, but I must insist on a caution. Do you want to include the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church as part of your argument. I do regret one of my former arguments, as a former Reformed Baptist, that Infant Baptism 'logically' leads us away from the Reformation and towards Rome. I regret my former view. Remember, you are discussing this with a Baptist.
> 
> I think it is better to say the "vast, vast, vast majority of confessionally Reformed churchs, post Reformation, have been paedobaptist, understanding Matt. 28:19-20 the way I explained above?


I appreciate the caution, but I believe my question is valid, because in this case we are not talking about covenant theology, but about the definition of a disciple. I would offer my own caution: Not everything Rome believes or has believed is necessarily wrong. I would use Catholic Church history in a moment to defend orthodox trinitarianism, for example.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio

Thank you for the discussion everyone. 

To the Baptists, could you share how it is that you speak with your children about God? Are you always saying “if you believe?”

To the paedobaptists, could you share the foundational promises that you see for your children? Especially the ones that you tell to them.


----------



## jwithnell

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thank you for the discussion everyone.
> 
> To the Baptists, could you share how it is that you speak with your children about God? Are you always saying “if you believe?”
> 
> To the paedobaptists, could you share the foundational promises that you see for your children? Especially the ones that you tell to them.


A Presbyterian here. I tell my children they are one of the stars of the sky and one of the grains of sand.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thank you for the discussion everyone.
> 
> To the Baptists, could you share how it is that you speak with your children about God? Are you always saying “if you believe?”
> 
> To the paedobaptists, could you share the foundational promises that you see for your children? Especially the ones that you tell to them.


I tell my children, "If you repent and believe, you will become sons of God." That is the promise of God to all sinners everywhere. No exclusions.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> I never said that my parents weren't pointing me to Christ. They were, all the time, and for that I am eternally indebted. What they _didn't do _was tell me that God had a special interest in me, by virtue of the very fact that he had placed me in a covenant home. Because of this, and because of my own sinful stupidity, I had no concept of the fact that God had made a claim upon my life, and that it was my duty and obligation to respond in faith and repentance. I also dealt with an extreme lack of assurance of God's willingness to save me, which I believe could have been alleviated if I had known of his covenant mercies that were toward me already. So in summary, I don't think my parents failed, I just think that they were consistent. They didn't believe that I was a member of God's covenant and a specific recipient of God's promises, and it showed in the lack of emphasis on these subjects.
> 
> Secondly, the comfort that you describe from the LBCF is a far cry from what is presented in the Canons of Dort, but admittedly similar in thrust to the WCF. The idea of "they are in heaven if they are elect" is essentially no comfort whatsoever. That provides no practical comfort to the parents because the parents have no basis on which to conclude that God's mercy was to their specific child. A reformed person however, more specifically someone who subscribes to the Canons of Dort, would be comforted that their child is indeed with the Lord. So the comfort is not nearly the same.
> 
> _Canons 1.17 "We must judge concerning the will of God from his Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents.1 Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.2"_
> 
> Whether you believe the above article or not is one thing, but one cannot argue that it presents a much stronger level of comfort to grieving parents than what is presented in the LBCF (or the WCF for that matter). This, as mentioned, is a practical difference, for at least some reformed families. Even those who subscribe to the WCF, I would contend, have a stronger basis for deriving comfort in the horrible scenario of the loss of an infant, purely because they believe that their children are members of God's covenant of Grace, which is a very significant detail. The baptist has no basis to believe that his child is a member of the CoG until professing faith which evidences regeneration. Until then, they are bound to assume that their child is not a member of this covenant, but only the covenant of works.


But the comfort offered by the Canon may be a false comfort, since it is not vouchsafed in Scripture. Consider for a moment:
If God promises salvation to children of believers simply because they are children of believers,
If some of those children wind up being unbelievers, as we see happen often,
Then the logical conclusion is that God's promise has somehow failed.
Do you believe that God's promises fail?
God has declared that salvation belongs to Him. He has promised to save all His elect. I have great comfort knowing that if my children are elect, they will inherit eternal life, and greater comfort knowing that whatever God is pleased to ordain, He does all things well. My duty toward my children, either way, is plain: I must show them Christ by example and precept, and cry to Him for their salvation. Whatever He is pleased to do will be right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Miss Marple said:


> If I may speak as a mom of several covenant children. . .
> 
> Yes, I presume my children are Christians. The alternative is to presume they are not. That is a major difference, I think, between covenant theology and non covenant theology.
> 
> A presumption is going to be made. I presume that the neighbor kids are not Christians - although I hope, pray and witness with hope of their conversion. I presume my kids are believers - although I know that sometimes covenant children end up denying Christ.
> 
> Knowing Muslim families, I consider their children Muslim. There are Buddhists in my neighborhood. They have Buddhist children. I am a Christian. I have Christian children. What else would they be?
> 
> I would not baptize a known unbeliever. Nor would I require them under my authority to pray (to a God they don't believe in?) or worship a God that they deny. I would not require them to read the Bible, etc. Yet we required these things of our children as a matter of course. Because we are a Christian family. That is our identity. Until and if a child credibly denies the faith, I assume they are of the household of faith, and communicate accordingly. Part of this discipling involves teaching basic Christian doctrine, for example the catechism. Not as to a rebel, but as to a covenant child. "These promises are yours. This is our faith. Jesus is our Savior."
> 
> It bothers me to think that this is considered to be somehow "federal vision." I don't think that's what we are. We don't believe our kids are saved no matter what. There is an age of accountability and a requirement that they, themselves, exercise their faith consciously.


Madam, the difference between Muslims and Buddhists and Christians is that the former two are merely vain, external, and cultural religions. But Christianity is not about culture, nor family: Christ came to bring a sword. It is about people who are born sinners and then are born again by grace through faith.
The Scripture nowhere speaks of an age of accountability--where would you place it?--rather is speaks of EVERY SINGLE PERSON being born in a fallen state and requiring a new heart.
To reduce "covenant theology" to mean nothing more than the inclusion of children is to miss what the covenant means.
Indeed, as you say to your children, I say to mine: "these promises are for you," and they are, whensoever the children receive them by faith. The glory of God's promise of salvation is that I can also go to the nations and say to the heathen: "these promises are for you. Receive them by faith and be converted!"
For Baptists, the family of God is not one of physical generation, but of New Birth. God told Nicodemus, a covenant member, that unless he were to be born again, he could not see the kingdom of God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Madam, the difference between Muslims and Buddhists and Christians is that the former two are merely vain, external, and cultural religions. But Christianity is not about culture, nor family: Christ came to bring a sword. It is about people who are born sinners and then are born again by grace through faith.
> The Scripture nowhere speaks of an age of accountability--where would you place it?--rather is speaks of EVERY SINGLE PERSON being born in a fallen state and requiring a new heart.
> To reduce "covenant theology" to mean nothing more than the inclusion of children is to miss what the covenant means.
> Indeed, as you say to your children, I say to mine: "these promises are for you," and they are, whensoever the children receive them by faith. The glory of God's promise of salvation is that I can also go to the nations and say to the heathen: "these promises are for you. Receive them by faith and be converted!"
> For Baptists, the family of God is not one of physical generation, but of New Birth. God told Nicodemus, a covenant member, that unless he were to be born again, he could not see the kingdom of God.


...and yet Nicodemus was seen as a covenant member of the community, not as "other". He received the sign of circumcision and was still commanded to repent and believe. What is the difference between him and the children who receive the new covenant sign today?

(Happy Lord's Day btw!)


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> But the comfort offered by the Canon may be a false comfort, since it is not vouchsafed in Scripture. Consider for a moment:
> If God promises salvation to children of believers simply because they are children of believers,
> If some of those children wind up being unbelievers, as we see happen often,
> Then the logical conclusion is that God's promise has somehow failed.
> Do you believe that God's promises fail?
> God has declared that salvation belongs to Him. He has promised to save all His elect. I have great comfort knowing that if my children are elect, they will inherit eternal life, and greater comfort knowing that whatever God is pleased to ordain, He does all things well. My duty toward my children, either way, is plain: I must show them Christ by example and precept, and cry to Him for their salvation. Whatever He is pleased to do will be right.


This subject of the salvation of children of believers dying in infancy has been discussed in a recent thread.

I am still thinking it all over, but I think that I now understand well enough to recognize that your comments here betray some unfamiliarity with the view you appear to oppose.

I can recommend also this paper by Dr. Venema, which was shared in that same thread by @Stephen L Smith, and which I think you will find very helpful, as indeed I myself have found.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> ...and yet Nicodemus was seen as a covenant member of the community, not as "other". He received the sign of circumcision and was still commanded to repent and believe. What is the difference between him and the children who receive the new covenant sign today?
> 
> (Happy Lord's Day btw!)


Nicodemus was a member of the Old Covenant. There is a different covenant at play now: one founded on better promises.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Nicodemus was a member of the Old Covenant. There is a different covenant at play now: one founded on better promises.


Exactly. Let's do some comparisons from Old to New.

If the Passover then is to The Lord's Supper now, what then do we make of circumcision?


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> But the comfort offered by the Canon may be a false comfort, since it is not vouchsafed in Scripture. Consider for a moment:
> If God promises salvation to children of believers simply because they are children of believers,
> If some of those children wind up being unbelievers, as we see happen often,
> Then the logical conclusion is that God's promise has somehow failed.
> Do you believe that God's promises fail?
> God has declared that salvation belongs to Him. He has promised to save all His elect. I have great comfort knowing that if my children are elect, they will inherit eternal life, and greater comfort knowing that whatever God is pleased to ordain, He does all things well. My duty toward my children, either way, is plain: I must show them Christ by example and precept, and cry to Him for their salvation. Whatever He is pleased to do will be right.


This is not what covenantal theology teaches at all. Covenantal theology never teaches that God promises salvation to the children of believers simply because they are children of believers. It says that God has a special interest in them as being set apart from the world. They still need to come to Christ.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio

greenbaggins said:


> This is not what covenantal theology teaches at all. Covenantal theology never teaches that God promises salvation to the children of believers simply because they are children of believers. It says that God has a special interest in them as being set apart from the world. They still need to come to Christ.


Brother, is there a concise book on this topic?


----------



## greenbaggins

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Brother, is there a concise book on this topic?


Jonty Rhodes's book _Covenants Made Simple_ is excellent, as is our own Jon Bonkers's _Ruin and Redemption_ (though Jon's book is quite long). These books are more laying the foundation of covenantal theology that underlies what paedos say about baptism. If one looks at Berkhof's ST, or Hodge, one will get an excellent picture of what baptism means in a covenantal context. We tend to use words like "sign" and "seal" since they are biblical words. 

I need to add something more to the discussion as well. Baptists are missing a distinction in their covenantal theology that paedos hold to, and the difference is the usual reason why misunderstandings like Ben's happen so often. Paedos distinguish between the essence of the covenant and the administration of the covenant. To the essence belongs salvation itself, election, and all the benefits that go with it. To the administration belong the ordinances like the sacraments, the preaching of the Word, fellowship, church discipline, etc. In paedo theology, baptism marks one as belonging to the administration of the covenant. It is not a sure sign that a person possesses the essence of the covenant. The signs point to the essence of the covenant, but are not themselves the essence of the covenant. So, when Baptists look at what paedos claim about baptism, they interpret our language on the basis of a zero-distinction all or nothing covenant theology where the only people that belong to the covenant are those who are saved. Hence Ben's misunderstanding of covenantal theology as saying that the promise means children are saved simply because they are part of a covenantal family. If more Baptists understood this point, I am convinced much of the misunderstanding, at least, could be cleared away.

Reactions: Like 15


----------



## Romans678

greenbaggins said:


> Jonty Rhodes's book _Covenants Made Simple_ is excellent, as is our own Jon Bonkers's _Ruin and Redemption_ (though Jon's book is quite long). These books are more laying the foundation of covenantal theology that underlies what paedos say about baptism. If one looks at Berkhof's ST, or Hodge, one will get an excellent picture of what baptism means in a covenantal context. We tend to use words like "sign" and "seal" since they are biblical words.
> 
> I need to add something more to the discussion as well. Baptists are missing a distinction in their covenantal theology that paedos hold to, and the difference is the usual reason why misunderstandings like Ben's happen so often. Paedos distinguish between the essence of the covenant and the administration of the covenant. To the essence belongs salvation itself, election, and all the benefits that go with it. To the administration belong the ordinances like the sacraments, the preaching of the Word, fellowship, church discipline, etc. In paedo theology, baptism marks one as belonging to the administration of the covenant. It is not a sure sign that a person possesses the essence of the covenant. The signs point to the essence of the covenant, but are not themselves the essence of the covenant. So, when Baptists look at what paedos claim about baptism, they interpret our language on the basis of a zero-distinction all or nothing covenant theology where the only people that belong to the covenant are those who are saved. Hence Ben's misunderstanding of covenantal theology as saying that the promise means children are saved simply because they are part of a covenantal family. If more Baptists understood this point, I am convinced much of the misunderstanding, at least, could be cleared away.


This is clear and concise.Thank you.

If this is the paedo view simplified, then what is the creedo view simplified?


----------



## greenbaggins

Romans678 said:


> This is clear and concise.Thank you.
> 
> If this is the paedo view simplified, then what is the creedo view simplified?


Well, as it is not a view I hold, I need to offer that caveat. Others who are credo may come along and correct me. My understanding of the credo view is that the new covenant only consists of believers (based on a particular reading of Jeremiah 31). Election and covenant are completely co-equal. Therefore, only they may have the sign of baptism. One needs to have the thing signified before one can have the sign, and this order is important. The order being important comes from a reading of Acts in a certain way (paedos read it differently).


----------



## Romans678

greenbaggins said:


> Well, as it is not a view I hold, I need to offer that caveat. Others who are credo may come along and correct me. My understanding of the credo view is that the new covenant only consists of believers (based on a particular reading of Jeremiah 31). Election and covenant are completely co-equal. Therefore, only they may have the sign of baptism. One needs to have the thing signified before one can have the sign, and this order is important. The order being important comes from a reading of Acts in a certain way (paedos read it differently).


OK let me wrap my head around this. Election and covenant are co-equal, which means baptism is only for the elect, which in turn means the New Covenant is only for the elect... 

...but somehow we still baptize unregenerate professors whist still claiming that baptism only belongs to the elect in the New Covenant, which is only supposed to house those that are truly elect.

How in the world are we supposed to know everybody that is elect? That is impossible! A mere arbitrary "confession" is not enough, right? You would have to literally be God and watch their every move to make sure they are really elect. And even then we are looking on the outward appearance of man and not the heart. 

This system doesn't seem to be very practical. I hope I'm not being offensive here, I'm just making observations about my own shortcomings in understanding.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> I tell my children, "If you repent and believe, you will become sons of God." That is the promise of God to all sinners everywhere. No exclusions.


Is that promise really "to all sinners everywhere"? Millions if not billions of people will die without ever hearing of that promise. But God, in his sovereign good pleasure made sure the promises were explicitly given to you and to your children.

Note that I am not saying that the promises are not to be preached to all indiscriminately. I am merely pointing out that in reality, the promises are not given to all sinners everywhere. In fact, I would contend that most people who have ever lived have never heard the gospel. That's why we as reformed people consider it a "big deal" that the promises are explicitly made to us, our children, along with everyone else afar off that the Lord will call. This bare fact is an evidence of much grace toward our children - not necessarily saving grace, but grace nonetheless. And they are given that grace by virtue of the fact that they are members of the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## De Jager

Romans678 said:


> OK let me wrap my head around this. Election and covenant are co-equal, which means baptism is only for the elect, which in turn means the New Covenant is only for the elect...
> 
> ...but somehow we still baptize unregenerate professors whist still claiming that baptism only belongs to the elect in the New Covenant, which is only supposed to house those that are truly elect.
> 
> How in the world are we supposed to know everybody that is elect? That is impossible! A mere arbitrary "confession" is not enough, right? You would have to literally be God and watch their every move to make sure they are really elect. And even then we are looking on the outward appearance of man and not the heart.
> 
> This system doesn't seem to be very practical. I hope I'm not being offensive here, I'm just making observations about my own shortcomings in understanding.


In defense of the reformed Baptists, they will not insist that they know for certain of a person's election, but they baptize on the basis of what they call a "credible profession" of faith. They see this as the pattern in the book of Acts and so that's why they do it that way. We as reformed people would also baptize a newcomer to the church on the same basis.

Reformed people on the other hand, see the household baptisms as evidence of a continuation of the household principle evident in the old testament application of circumcision. We believe we would have to see an overthrow of this in order for us to stop practicing the giving of the covenant sign to our children - i.e. members of our household.

The rub of the issue is how we view the new covenant, as mentioned earlier by Rev. Keister. RBs tend to view the NC as a radical change from how the covenant of grace (if they accept that language) was administered prior to Christ. Reformed people do not see such a radical break in how things are administered.

I think you have to admit that the idea that children of believers are now not in the covenant seems to be a bit of a step backwards, when the thrust of the scriptures seems to be the showing of more grace as time goes on, especially with the inauguration of the NC. That's my take anyways.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

De Jager said:


> In defense of the reformed Baptists, they will not insist that they know for certain of a person's election, but they baptize on the basis of what they call a "credible profession" of faith. They see this as the pattern in the book of Acts and so that's why they do it that way.
> 
> Reformed people on the other hand, see the household baptisms as evidence of a continuation of the household principle evident in the old testament application of circumcision. We believe we would have to see an overthrow of this in order for us to stop practicing the giving of the covenant sign to our children - i.e. members of our household.
> 
> The rub of the issue is how we view the new covenant, as mentioned earlier by Rev. Keister. RBs tend to view the NC as a radical change from how the covenant of grace (if they accept that language) was administered prior to Christ. Reformed people do not see such a radical break in how things are administered.
> 
> I think you have to admit that the idea that children of believers are now not in the covenant seems to be a bit of a step backwards, when the thrust of the scriptures seems to be the showing of more grace as time goes on, especially with the inauguration of the NC. That's my take anyways.


Understood. I mean, the scriptures are pretty clear. Psalm 127 and 128, Malachi 2:15, Genesis 15 and 17, the entire book of Exodus, etc. The Lord cares for babies of his people. After all, without offspring, who will proclaim the glory of the Lord to the world?

"Children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward". He speaks so highly of children of believers, "like arrows in the hands of a warrior" He calls them. That's not presumption, that's a fact!

Why are we trying so hard to separate those promises and testimonies in the past from the way we rear our children now in the future? I just just get it...I'm really disturbed by this. What is our goal in doing so?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> This subject of the salvation of children of believers dying in infancy has been discussed in a recent thread.
> 
> I am still thinking it all over, but I think that I now understand well enough to recognize that your comments here betray some unfamiliarity with the view you appear to oppose.
> 
> I can recommend also this paper by Dr. Venema, which was shared in that same thread by @Stephen L Smith, and which I think you will find very helpful, as indeed I myself have found.


It's not unfamiliarity: the paedobaptist view is neither deep nor difficult, and I think I understand it perfectly--I simply reject it as inconsistent with Scripture, as have thousands of Baptists before me. There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Understood. I mean, the scriptures are pretty clear. Psalm 127 and 128, Malachi 2:15, Genesis 15 and 17, the entire book of Exodus, etc. The Lord cares for babies of his people. After all, without offspring, who will proclaim the glory of the Lord to the world?
> 
> "Children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward". He speaks so highly of children of believers, "like arrows in the hands of a warrior" He calls them. That's not presumption, that's a fact!
> 
> Why are we trying so hard to separate those promises and testimonies in the past from the way we rear our children now in the future? I just just get it...I'm really disturbed by this. What is our goal in doing so?


I haven't time for a long reply, but the short version is: salvation is not now nor ever was by physical generation. All are sinners in Adam, each one individually must have dealings with God for his/her own sins. During OT times, family inclusion in a covenant that did not guarantee salvation was a picture of a better time approaching, one in which everyone in covenant with God was saved. There's a new family at play here: a spiritual one, where believers, and they alone, are Abraham's children. Jesus said, "Who is my mother and my brethren? Those that do the will of my Father." (paraphrase)
Children are not excluded or pushed away from the promises: the promises are for them, when they receive them by faith, and they are urged and exhorted to do so daily, in some cases.


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> It's not unfamiliarity: the paedobaptist view is neither deep nor difficult, and I think I understand it perfectly--I simply reject it as inconsistent with Scripture, as have thousands of Baptists before me. There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._


Evidently you have not read the paper I linked.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> I haven't time for a long reply, but the short version is: salvation is not now nor ever was by physical generation. All are sinners in Adam, each one individually must have dealings with God for his/her own sins. During OT times, family inclusion in a covenant that did not guarantee salvation was a picture of a better time approaching, one in which everyone in covenant with God was saved. There's a new family at play here: a spiritual one, where believers, and they alone, are Abraham's children. Jesus said, "Who is my mother and my brethren? Those that do the will of my Father." (paraphrase)
> Children are not excluded or pushed away from the promises: the promises are for them, when they receive them by faith, and they are urged and exhorted to do so daily, in some cases.



I don't believe the scriptures teach that baptism guarantees salvation nor physical generation. I have yet to meet a paedobaptist that stakes that claim. I'm sure you've heard the term "outward expression of an inward grace". That's not biblical either, if you want to use the same standard.

To me it appears in our own circles that we tend to guard baptism as if it were the Lord's Supper. 

My argument is for the understanding of the purpose of baptism. Paedobaptists have a clearer path: circumcision to water baptism. What do we have as Baptists? What can we lay claim to that connects the OT Church to the NT Church? And furthermore why prolong the process of baptism in child rearing when our children belong to the Lord anyway?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> It's not unfamiliarity: the paedobaptist view is neither deep nor difficult, and I think I understand it perfectly


You say that, but then earlier, you said this as a statement of the paedo view: "If God promises salvation to children of believers simply because they are children of believers,"

These two statements are incompatible, as no reputable paedo/covenantal theologian has ever claimed it. Romans 4 alone nixes the idea, since Paul explicitly says that those who are genealogically children of Abraham still need to have the same faith as Abraham. Otherwise, not all who are Israel are of Israel. 

It is Baptists, in my opinion, who do not understand the nature of the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31. There is an over-realized eschatology in the Baptist position. They will stress the phrase "they will all know me from the least to the greatest" and forget the phrase "no longer will anyone teach his neighbor." The Baptist position implies that all of the promises of Jeremiah 31 have been completely fulfilled in the new covenant such that all members connected to the new covenant are all believers. The problem is that we still need teachers teaching our neighbors to know the Lord. The new covenant is _striving towards_ the picture painted in Jeremiah 31, but it is _not there yet_. It will not be there completely until the second coming of our Lord. We live in an already/not yet situation where some of Jeremiah 31 has come to pass, but not all of it. 

The real downfall of the Baptist position on the new covenant is the apostasy passages in Hebrews 6 and elsewhere that show the difference between administration/essence of the covenant (which corresponds, in turn, to the visible/invisible church distinction). The paedos have an easier time explaining apostasy passages: the person falling away did not fall away from the essence of the covenant (i.e., they did not have any saving benefits), but from its administration (access to the means of grace in the church). On a Baptist understanding of the apostasy passages, there is nothing there from which they could fall away. Once the Baptist sees that there is a difference between visible/invisible church that corresponds to the administration/essence covenantal distinction, he is more than halfway towards the paedo position. 

Another problem with the Baptist understanding of Jeremiah 31 is that they tend to think the "older" covenant being rejected/replaced (whatever word one wants to use) is the Abrahamic. It is not. The New Covenant dispensation fulfills/replaces the Mosaic covenant. This is quite clear from Jeremiah 31: 32: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers _on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." _NOTHING in the Bible abrogates the promises or the covenant made to Abraham, which means NOTHING has changed the position of children relative to the covenant of grace. Indeed, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 say quite the opposite of the Baptist understanding of the New Covenant. Paul says there, in effect, that the New Covenant is the post-Christ version of the Abrahamic covenant. No promise made to Abraham is revoked, which means no promise made about the children of Abraham is revoked. 

To tie all this back to the OP, baptism is like an engagement ring. I have used this illustration before, but it bears repeating. The difference between credos and paedos on how they treat their children is a bit like the difference between a young couple engaged without an engagement ring (credos) and another young couple engaged with a ring (paedos). Ask the young ladies in question whether it makes a difference!

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## De Jager

Also on the topic of the understanding of the promises in Jeremiah 31. I understand the "all" to refer to all types and ranks of people - i.e. from the least to the greatest, not a universal "all" that includes every individual without exception.

This phrase "all...from least to the greatest" is used elsewhere in Jeremiah and it would be pretty hard to argue that it means "every single person without exception".

For example, Jeremiah 6:13 --> "“Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone _is_ given to covetousness; And from the prophet even to the priest, Everyone deals falsely."

Does that really mean _everyone_? Like every single person, without exception? Is that what God is getting at? Are we to believe that there wasn't a _single person_ in the entire kingdom who was devoted to God? What about Jeremiah himself? Even one exception destroys the entire position. Furthermore we happen to know that there was always a remnant, preserved by God.

As Gavin Beers pointed out in a sermon I listened to, we talk like this _all the time_. Really? _All the time? We never talk about anything else?_


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> salvation is not now nor ever was by physical generation


I don't know any presbyterians/reformed that believe this at all unless you get into the heretics (e.g. FV). The thought is easily defeated by the early part of Romans 9. So if that's what you believe WE believe, then that would be a strawman that you are arguing against.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D.

Personally, I agree that the usual Baptist interpretation of Jer. 31 suffers from an over-realized eschatology, largely for the same reasons Rev. Keister laid out. I also think the bar is often set too high for children old enough to at least grasp the basics of the gospel and want to be baptized. In fact I think they should be pointed to and encourged to be baptized very early on, rather than having to be deeply vetted first in order to check out their theological qualifications, so to speak. Baptism upon a _simple_ and sometimes immediate proffesion is what we see in the NT even with regard to adults.

My issue is that I don't see infant baptism being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT, coupled with not seeing how the NT supposedly teaches that physical circumcision is literally replaced by baptism. There are multiple instances where the mere statement of this, were it so, in relation to Gentile believers is absolutely begged for, and would have saved Paul much ink and agony. So while there may be good reasons for the Reformed paedo position, they are questionably derived and inferetial, and as such fall short of the second required component of the RPW of being necessary. While deep theological mysteries like the ontology of the Trinity are often derived, we're takling about an introductory imperical practice that simple new converts, again, including Gentiles, would need to have clearly understood. The way various passages are typically exegeted by paedos also strike me as hasty, untenable and inconsistant, and so betrays a weakness in the position rather than providing a sound or conclusive basis for it. Secondarily, the fact that covenetal infant baptism is never articulated in church history prior to Zwingli also gives me reason for pause.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Phil D. said:


> Personally, I agree that the usual Baptist interpretation of Jer. 31 suffers from an over-realized eschatology, largely for the same reasons Rev. Keister laid out. I also think the bar is often set too high for children old enough to at least grasp the basics of the gospel and want to be baptized. In fact I think they should be pointed to and encourged to be baptized very early on, rather than having to be deeply vetted first in order to check out their theological qualifications, so to speak. Baptism upon a _simple_ and sometimes immediate proffesion is what we see in the NT even with regard to adults.
> 
> My issue is that I don't see infant baptism being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT, coupled with not seeing how the NT supposedly teaches that physical circumcision is literally replaced by baptism. There are multiple instances where the mere statement of this, were it so, in relation to Gentile believers is absolutely begged for, and would have saved Paul much ink and agony. So while there may be good reasons for the Reformed paedo position, they are questionably derived and inferetial, and as such fall short of the second required component of the RPW of being necessary. While deep theological mysteries like the ontology of the Trinity are often derived, we're takling about an introductory imperical practice that simple new converts, again, including Gentiles, would need to have clearly understood. The way various passages are typically exegeted by paedos also strike me as hasty, untenable and inconsistant, and so betrays a weakness in the position rather than providing a sound or conclusive basis for it. Secondarily, the fact that covenetal infant baptism is never articulated in church history prior to Zwingli also gives me reason for pause.


The New Testament does everything except explicitly say "baptism replaces circumcision". 

Both are signs of initiation. Both are signs of cleansing. Both point to the work of Spirit upon the heart. Both are given once, upon entrance to the covenant community. Both are fulfilled in the work of Christ (Col. 2:11). And the one (baptism) clearly is established and commanded upon the inauguration of the New Covenant while the other very clearly fades into disuse. 

Again, without saying "hey everyone, baptism replaces circumcision", I don't know how much clearer it could possibly be. But many of our doctrines are not supported by an explicit proof-text. The demand for such an explicit proof-text for the replacement of circumcision with baptism is unwarranted, considering the fact that we hold much more fundamental doctrines (such as the trinity as you mentioned) without such a demand. If you are going to be consistent, you should also be willing to claim that the very doctrine of the Trinity itself "falls short of the second required component of the RPW of being necessary".

Secondly, just because something isn't well articulated in church history prior to a certain date does not invalidate that position. For example, again consider the Trinity. When was that finally articulated well? It took a few centuries. Do we therefore reject it? No.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Phil D.

De Jager said:


> Again, without saying "hey everyone, baptism replaces circumcision", I don't know how much clearer it could possibly be. But many of our doctrines are not supported by an explicit proof-text. The demand for such an explicit proof-text for the replacement of circumcision with baptism is unwarranted, considering the fact that we hold much more fundamental doctrines (such as the trinity as you mentioned) without such a demand. *If you are going to be consistent, *you should also be willing to claim that the very doctrine of the Trinity itself "falls short of the second required component of the RPW of being necessary".
> 
> Secondly, just because something isn't well articulated in church history prior to a certain date does not invalidate that position. *For example, again consider the Trinity.* When was that finally articulated well? It took a few centuries. Do we therefore reject it? No.


I explained the difference, anticipating your very objection, which you may not agree with, but nonetheless...


----------



## Phil D.

De Jager said:


> Secondly, just because something isn't well articulated in church history prior to a certain date does not invalidate that position. For example, again consider the Trinity. When was that finally articulated well? It took a few centuries. Do we therefore reject it? No.


 Also note I said church history gives me pause, not that that's a primary reason I don't believe in infant baptism. The Reformed are typically wary of later doctrinal explanations or inovations, as I am with this issue.


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> My issue is that I don't see infant baptism being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT, coupled with not seeing how the NT supposedly teaches that physical circumcision is literally replaced by baptism.



My issue is that I don't see females participating in the Lord's Supper being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT, coupled with not seeing how the NT supposedly teaches that females participating in the Passover meal is literally being replaced by females participating at the Lord's Table.

My issue is that I don't see the church using pews and chairs being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT...

See what I did there? We have to be mindful when stating something isn't "biblical" or while saying "show me chapter and verse". That argument usually gets turned on its head pretty early on...

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Imputatio

I appreciate the discussion, keep it going if it pleases you. Thanks.


----------



## Romans678

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I appreciate the discussion, keep it going if it pleases you. Thanks.


All I all, I tell my children that they belong to God. Period. I emphasize that this truth as simultaneously invigorating and terrifying, because they will have to give an account to the Lord on His Day. 

"Little one, be found in Christ, grab hold of His promises, and don't EVER let go!"

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

Romans678 said:


> My issue is that I don't see females participating in the Lord's Supper being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT, coupled with not seeing how the NT supposedly teaches that females participating in the Passover meal is literally being replaced by females participating at the Lord's Table.I see you're familiar with this common paedo obcection.



I see you're familliar with this common paedo objection. First, many Reformed (and other) theologians dispute that the Last Supper was specifically an observance of the Passover meal. Second, there is no reason to exclude women from the address "to the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" in 1 Cor. 1:2, to which the subsequent intructions in places like 10:16 ansd 11:26 are directed.



Romans678 said:


> My issue is that I don't see the church using pews and chairs being commanded, or sufficient evidence that it was practiced in the NT...
> 
> See what I did there? We have to be mindful when stating something isn't "biblical" or while saying "show me chapter and verse". That argument usually gets turned on its head pretty early on...



All concerned, paedos and credos, agree these are circumstances of worship and not of the substance. It's a straw man.

You give all indication that you're already convinced of the paedo position and are mostly looking for affirmation. If that's the case, that's fine and I would simply say, go in peace to serve the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Phil D. said:


> I explained the difference, anticipating your very objection, which you may not agree with, but nonetheless...



Your original post begged for an explicit statement by Paul - _"There are multiple instances where the mere statement of this, were it so, in relation to Gentile believers is absolutely begged for, and would have saved Paul much ink and agony"_. You are asking for an explicit statement, without which you will not be convinced. And yet you readily accept the more basic, fundamental, and introductory doctrine of the Trinity without the same demand. Why? Your reasoning for this apparent discrepancy is:

_"While deep theological mysteries like the ontology of the Trinity are often derived, we're takling about an introductory imperical practice that simple new converts, again, including Gentiles, would need to have clearly understood"._

This is not a convincing argument to me. You seem to be advocating that the doctrine of the proper recipients of baptism is actually more basic, necessary, and "introductory" for "simple new converts" than the doctrine of the Trinity. Can this even possibly be defended? I am of the opinion that it cannot. The Trinity is about as basic as it gets. It's literally in the Apostle's Creed, the most basic and universal church creed that unites basically all churches who even remotely consider themselves Christian. The doctrine of the proper recipients of baptism, while important, is undoubtedly lower on the totem pole of doctrines than that of the Trinity! There is no credible church, Baptist or Reformed that would accept someone into membership who did not at least affirm the doctrine of the Trinity (a comprehensive understanding is another matter). 

Therefore, I believe the objection still stands - if you are willing to concede the doctrine of the Trinity, which is one of the most basic Christian doctrines, and one in which cannot be proved by simple proof-texts, you can't at the same time be unwilling to accept a lesser doctrine on the basis that "the Bible doesn't explicitly say it".

_Furthermore,_

The reformed position would simply reply that Paul doesn't need to say something explicitly when it is implicitly implied throughout the pages of the NT, for the reasons I presented above...Both are signs of initiation. Both are signs of cleansing. Both point to the work of Spirit upon the heart. Both are given once, upon entrance to the covenant community. Both are fulfilled in the work of Christ (Col. 2:11). And the one (baptism) clearly is established and commanded upon the inauguration of the New Covenant while the other very clearly fades into disuse. And they are even applied in the same way (to households) - Acts 16.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> ... there is no reason to exclude women from the address "to the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" in 1 Cor. 1:2, to which the subsequent intructions in places like 10:16 ansd 11:26 are directed.



There is no reason to exclude children from baptism from the evidence of address to children in the same letter you speak of. Even the letter Paul wrote to the church in Ephasus spoke about children in like manner. Why should we separate children from parents if they are spoken of as Christ's beloved? Paul wrote "to the church..." and them spoke of children a few chapters after. Logically that means children are IN the sphere of Christ's church!

Arent children to be treated in the same manner as those who are aged in the same congregation? What do we gain by making them separate from us? What are we doing here?


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

De Jager said:


> Your original post begged for an explicit statement by Paul


For example, whenever he deals with the Judaizers, specifically the notion that the Gentiles should be circumcised.

The rest of your post is a reiteration of the usual Reformed position, or refutation of well-known Reformed Baptist responses. Many discussions covering the differences on this board can easily be searched. I'm not inclined to rehash those things yet again. My intent in posting was to provide some succinctness to certain points related to the OP. 

It has often been observed that both parties agree there are both continuities and discontinuities when it comes to the covenants in the OT and NT, the difference having to do with to what extent, especially when it comes to various externalities. Given our stated positions, we don't find the other's arguments convincing - obviously. Pax.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> For example, whenever he deals with the Judaizers, specifically the notion that the Gentiles should be circumcised.
> 
> The rest of your post is a reiteration of the usual Reformed position, or refutation of well-known Reformed Baptist responses. Many discussions covering the differences on this board can easily be searched. I'm not inclined to rehash those things yet again. My intent in posting was to provide some succinctness to certain points related to the OP.
> 
> It has often been observed that both parties agree there are both continuities and discontinuities when it comes to the covenants in the OT and NT, the difference having to do with to what extent, especially when it comes to various externalities. Given our stated positions, we don't find the other's arguments convincing - obviously. Pax.



That's fair. 

The Judaizers were chastised for adding extra steps to God's free grace in Christ Jesus our Lord. By adding arbitrary requirements, they added stumbling blocks to inhibit God's people. Consider these points:

a) requiring a person to reach a certain age of reason to be baptized
b) to be a certain depth beneath the element of water

This doesn't sound like grace to me. This sounds dangerously close to those Paul was speaking of requiring circumcision all those years ago. 

Childrearing with this attitude will cause the child to feel alienated from their people. Our kids will have a people whether you like it or not, and no mere prayer or words of affirmation can replace the waters of God's baptism. The world is pining for our kids, like vultures to Abraham's offering and we are falling asleep under immense darkness by not administering the sign of the Father, Son, and Spirit on the very heritage the Lord gave us.



Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> I see you're familliar with this common paedo objection. First, many Reformed (and other) theologians dispute that the Last Supper was specifically an observance of the Passover meal. Second, there is no reason to exclude women from the address "to the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" in 1 Cor. 1:2, to which the subsequent intructions in places like 10:16 ansd 11:26 are directed.
> 
> 
> 
> All concerned, paedos and credos, agree these are circumstances of worship and not of the substance. It's a straw man.
> 
> You give all indication that you're already convinced of the paedo position and are mostly looking for affirmation. If that's the case, that's fine and I would simply say, go in peace to serve the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.


Also, in love I say this: I do not need affirmation from others. I have the promises of God to lean upon both I the OT and the NT. No I retract that statement... WE ALL have the promises of God to lean upon. Ultimately baptism and the Lord's Supper belongs to Him and we are not to add or take away from them. They are perfect gifts from the Father of lights in heaven above. Be blessed brother, I mean that with all of my heart.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> You say that, but then earlier, you said this as a statement of the paedo view: "If God promises salvation to children of believers simply because they are children of believers,"
> 
> These two statements are incompatible, as no reputable paedo/covenantal theologian has ever claimed it. Romans 4 alone nixes the idea, since Paul explicitly says that those who are genealogically children of Abraham still need to have the same faith as Abraham. Otherwise, not all who are Israel are of Israel.
> 
> It is Baptists, in my opinion, who do not understand the nature of the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31. There is an over-realized eschatology in the Baptist position. They will stress the phrase "they will all know me from the least to the greatest" and forget the phrase "no longer will anyone teach his neighbor." The Baptist position implies that all of the promises of Jeremiah 31 have been completely fulfilled in the new covenant such that all members connected to the new covenant are all believers. The problem is that we still need teachers teaching our neighbors to know the Lord. The new covenant is _striving towards_ the picture painted in Jeremiah 31, but it is _not there yet_. It will not be there completely until the second coming of our Lord. We live in an already/not yet situation where some of Jeremiah 31 has come to pass, but not all of it.
> 
> The real downfall of the Baptist position on the new covenant is the apostasy passages in Hebrews 6 and elsewhere that show the difference between administration/essence of the covenant (which corresponds, in turn, to the visible/invisible church distinction). The paedos have an easier time explaining apostasy passages: the person falling away did not fall away from the essence of the covenant (i.e., they did not have any saving benefits), but from its administration (access to the means of grace in the church). On a Baptist understanding of the apostasy passages, there is nothing there from which they could fall away. Once the Baptist sees that there is a difference between visible/invisible church that corresponds to the administration/essence covenantal distinction, he is more than halfway towards the paedo position.
> 
> Another problem with the Baptist understanding of Jeremiah 31 is that they tend to think the "older" covenant being rejected/replaced (whatever word one wants to use) is the Abrahamic. It is not. The New Covenant dispensation fulfills/replaces the Mosaic covenant. This is quite clear from Jeremiah 31: 32: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers _on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." _NOTHING in the Bible abrogates the promises or the covenant made to Abraham, which means NOTHING has changed the position of children relative to the covenant of grace. Indeed, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 say quite the opposite of the Baptist understanding of the New Covenant. Paul says there, in effect, that the New Covenant is the post-Christ version of the Abrahamic covenant. No promise made to Abraham is revoked, which means no promise made about the children of Abraham is revoked.
> 
> To tie all this back to the OP, baptism is like an engagement ring. I have used this illustration before, but it bears repeating. The difference between credos and paedos on how they treat their children is a bit like the difference between a young couple engaged without an engagement ring (credos) and another young couple engaged with a ring (paedos). Ask the young ladies in question whether it makes a difference!


So what DOES God promise to the children of believers? Not salvation--we agree on that. That they will be saved if they repent and believe the Gospel? God promises that to every single person to whom the Gospel is brought!
The difference, really, is in how we view the administration: Paedos believe that the New Covenant has an exterior administration that does not require salvation as a condition for entry: it is a breakable covenant. Credos believe that the New Covenant is for those who have been actually born again.
For the purposes of the OP, there is no practical difference in the way we raise our children: we both bring them into the orbit of the Gospel, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and pray for their salvation. The difference is administrative: credos accept them into the church upon a credible confession and baptism, Paedos accept them into the church upon birth, then wait for some nebulous "age of accountability" (see further upthread), and allow them the Table after "confirmation" (see upthread), neither of which notions is found in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> Evidently you have not read the paper I linked.


I skimmed it, but found it unconvincing.


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> The difference is administrative: credos accept them into the church upon a credible confession and baptism, Paedos accept them into the church upon birth, then wait for some nebulous "age of accountability" (see further upthread), and allow them the Table after "confirmation" (see upthread), neither of which notions is found in Scripture.


Surely this is not being even-handed in your representations. You give baptists a “credible profession” and ascribe to Presbyterians an “age of accountability” “not found in scripture”. 

Of course looking in the New Testament one searches in vain for a child being born into a Christian home and being withheld water until they can give a credible profession.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> So what DOES God promise to the children of believers? Not salvation--we agree on that. That they will be saved if they repent and believe the Gospel? God promises that to every single person to whom the Gospel is brought!
> The difference, really, is in how we view the administration: Paedos believe that the New Covenant has an exterior administration that does not require salvation as a condition for entry: it is a breakable covenant. Credos believe that the New Covenant is for those who have been actually born again.
> For the purposes of the OP, there is no practical difference in the way we raise our children: we both bring them into the orbit of the Gospel, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and pray for their salvation. The difference is administrative: credos accept them into the church upon a credible confession and baptism, Paedos accept them into the church upon birth, then wait for some nebulous "age of accountability" (see further upthread), and allow them the Table after "confirmation" (see upthread), neither of which notions is found in Scripture.


Brother, if you can point out the elect of God based on outward appearances I will pay you a year's wages tonight.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Imputatio

I have to say, with how important this topic is, it’s extremely daunting to try and make sense of it when there is so much disagreement.


----------



## LilyG

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have to say, with how important this topic is, it’s extremely daunting to try and make sense of it when there is so much disagreement.


There is misunderstanding too. That makes it hard.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have to say, with how important this topic is, it’s extremely daunting to try and make sense of it when there is so much disagreement.


It was bound to happen in a thread with both paedobaptist and credobaptist views represented. You may want to consider, after digesting some of this, posting in the ‘paedobaptist answers’ section of the baptism forum, since as a Baptist currently, your questions likely have mostly to do with the differences between the two.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> Is that promise really "to all sinners everywhere"? Millions if not billions of people will die without ever hearing of that promise. But God, in his sovereign good pleasure made sure the promises were explicitly given to you and to your children.
> 
> Note that I am not saying that the promises are not to be preached to all indiscriminately. I am merely pointing out that in reality, the promises are not given to all sinners everywhere. In fact, I would contend that most people who have ever lived have never heard the gospel. That's why we as reformed people consider it a "big deal" that the promises are explicitly made to us, our children, along with everyone else afar off that the Lord will call. This bare fact is an evidence of much grace toward our children - not necessarily saving grace, but grace nonetheless. And they are given that grace by virtue of the fact that they are members of the covenant of grace.


No, they are given the grace of a general Gospel call--which is huge, I admit--while they are yet outside of the covenant of grace. They do have greater responsibility, as does everyone who has heard the Gospel, but the covenant in Christ's blood is only for those who have been washed in it.
This is the difference we have, and I don't expect we'll see eye to eye this side of glory.
But seriously, do you not see a problem with stopping Peter's words on Pentecost mid-sentence? "To you and your children and to those who are far off, even as many as the Lord will call." This is one entire group, limited by those whom the Lord will effectually call. The promise is not "I will save you and your children also if only you repent." It is "I will save you if you will repent; I will save your children if they will repent; I will save those who are afar off if they will repent; indeed, I will save everyone whom I effectually call."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Brother, if you can point out the elect of God based on outward appearances I will pay you a year's wages tonight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Yes but how much do you make?

Christians are known by their fruits. If a person's life is consistently marked by the fruit of the spirit, they will have a pretty good testimony. Now, of course only God knows infallibly whose are his, but within the limits of our own fallibility in judging, and the false professors' ability to deceive, Scripture gives a pretty good idea of what a true believer looks like. So we judge what we see, knowing that we often make mistakes, and we baptize according to the rule of scripture. More than that we cannot do.
Friend, I'd love to address each of your posts individually, but they are like a flood, or the random pellets from a scattergun: too many treads to pick up and chase out all at once. Your mind is too fast for my slow intellect, but I would urge you, since you clearly are in the cage stage of paeobaptist fervor, to change your signature so it reflects your views. Are you a baptist, as your signature claims? Then why rail against baptist theology? Are you a paedobaptist? then why have the baptist moniker in your signature?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Eyedoc84 said:


> Surely this is not being even-handed in your representations. You give baptists a “credible profession” and ascribe to Presbyterians an “age of accountability” “not found in scripture”.
> 
> Of course looking in the New Testament one searches in vain for a child being born into a Christian home and being withheld water until they can give a credible profession.


I did not ascribe "an age of accountability," it was mentioned by two paedobaptists above. I'm simply responding to it.
Looking in the New Testament, one also fails to see an infant given the sign of baptism. I know, I know, the whole "household" thing, but we have no evidence, only an assumption, that there were infants in those households. If you want to argue from silence, well, there's a lot of silence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> I skimmed it, but found it unconvincing.


I do not mean you need to find it convincing, only informative.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Yes but how much do you make?
> 
> Christians are known by their fruits. If a person's life is consistently marked by the fruit of the spirit, they will have a pretty good testimony. Now, of course only God knows infallibly whose are his, but within the limits of our own fallibility in judging, and the false professors' ability to deceive, Scripture gives a pretty good idea of what a true believer looks like. So we judge what we see, knowing that we often make mistakes, and we baptize according to the rule of scripture. More than that we cannot do.
> Friend, I'd love to address each of your posts individually, but they are like a flood, or the random pellets from a scattergun: too many treads to pick up and chase out all at once. Your mind is too fast for my slow intellect, but I would urge you, since you clearly are in the cage stage of paeobaptist fervor, to change your signature so it reflects your views. Are you a baptist, as your signature claims? Then why rail against baptist theology? Are you a paedobaptist? then why have the baptist moniker in your signature?



If there was a way to highlight tonality while typing here, I would choose "jovial inquisitivness". I promise you I am nicer than my rapid fire questions and concerns on this wonderful board. I mean no harm [emoji846][emoji106]

I am not going to change my signature until I am fully convinced. That's why I'm asking these questions in this manner. This is probably the only place where you can ask difficult questions that get answered fairly quickly.

God used types and shadows pointing to his future redemptive plan. Many OT items like the assembly in ancient Isreal (the church) the preists (Christ), the Passover (the Lord's Supper), pointed to something greater. What does baptism replace or unveil in this framework?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> I did not ascribe "an age of accountability," it was mentioned by two paedobaptists above. I'm simply responding to it.
> Looking in the New Testament, one also fails to see an infant given the sign of baptism. I know, I know, the whole "household" thing, but we have no evidence, only an assumption, that there were infants in those households. If you want to argue from silence, well, there's a lot of silence.


Which two paedobaptists said that? I only see one, and no offense to her, but she is not a teacher or minister. Surely one paedobaptist doesn’t a theology make.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager

Phil D. said:


> For example, whenever he deals with the Judaizers, specifically the notion that the Gentiles should be circumcised.
> 
> The rest of your post is a reiteration of the usual Reformed position, or refutation of well-known Reformed Baptist responses. Many discussions covering the differences on this board can easily be searched. I'm not inclined to rehash those things yet again. My intent in posting was to provide some succinctness to certain points related to the OP.
> 
> It has often been observed that both parties agree there are both continuities and discontinuities when it comes to the covenants in the OT and NT, the difference having to do with to what extent, especially when it comes to various externalities. Given our stated positions, we don't find the other's arguments convincing - obviously. Pax.


Yes, Paul explicitly explains that the Gentiles don't need to be circumcised. He did this because there was a very specific problem in many of the churches, that being that the Jews were adding to the gospel by saying circumcision was required in order to be saved, which essentially is a denial of the gospel itself. So in my mind it is easy to understand why Paul specifically addressed this with very pointed language. There is no evidence however, that the proper recipients of baptism was a debated topic at the time of the writing of the NT, so why would he need to make an explicit statement on this? 


Ben Zartman said:


> No, they are given the grace of a general Gospel call--which is huge, I admit--while they are yet outside of the covenant of grace. They do have greater responsibility, as does everyone who has heard the Gospel, but the covenant in Christ's blood is only for those who have been washed in it.
> This is the difference we have, and I don't expect we'll see eye to eye this side of glory.
> But seriously, do you not see a problem with stopping Peter's words on Pentecost mid-sentence? "To you and your children and to those who are far off, even as many as the Lord will call." This is one entire group, limited by those whom the Lord will effectually call. The promise is not "I will save you and your children also if only you repent." It is "I will save you if you will repent; I will save your children if they will repent; I will save those who are afar off if they will repent; indeed, I will save everyone whom I effectually call."


They are not outside the covenant of grace. People outside the covenant of grace aren't "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14), they are unclean. People who are outside the covenant can't _"profane the blood of the covenant by which they have been sanctified"_ (Heb. 10:29). This is covenantal language. I don't believe your position does justice to the Biblical data. There is no place for verses like the above in your system. They make absolutely no sense if we are to believe that the administration of the covenant is all about the "internal" and there is no external aspect to it.

Regarding Acts 2:38-39, it really depends on whether you view the "call" as an external or internal (effectual) call of the gospel. Matthew Henry agrees with you that it is an internal call. I am not convinced that this is necessarily what is in view here. To me, that wouldn't make much sense considering the "promise" language. For Peter is not talking about the substance of the promise, but of the gospel promise itself. That in and of itself would be an interesting topic of study. It would be nice if we could get others to chime in on that or see how this "call" has been interpreted in the past.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> The promise is not "I will save you and your children also if only you repent."


Again Ben, a strawman. Who here believes that?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> Paedos accept them into the church upon birth, then wait for some nebulous "age of accountability" (see further upthread), and allow them the Table after "confirmation" (see upthread), neither of which notions is found in Scripture.



Not all Presbyterians or reformed believe in the age of accountability nor a papist confirmation. So again strawman. I’m wondering who you are arguing against here is some random person you came into contact with outside the Puritanboard of which most of us do not hold such views. Perhaps you could discern what we believe and then argue against us…

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> So what DOES God promise to the children of believers? Not salvation--we agree on that. That they will be saved if they repent and believe the Gospel? God promises that to every single person to whom the Gospel is brought!


Baptism is related to the promise like an engagement ring to a proposal. Baptism is God, to use anthropomorphic language, "putting His money where HIs mouth is." God does indeed promise salvation, but He does it in such a way that God-given faith is needed to connect the sign to the thing signified for baptism to be a means of grace. Without faith, baptism condemns. So, in your implication that baptism for infants doesn't do anything beyond what God would give anyone, you are forgetting the judgment side of baptism (see J.V. Fesko's _Word, Water, and Spirit_ for a brilliant exposition of this key baptism theme).



Ben Zartman said:


> Paedos believe that the New Covenant has an exterior administration that does not require salvation as a condition for entry: it is a breakable covenant.


Um, no. The external administration does NOT constitute a breakable covenant separate and distinct from the essence of the covenant. The essence of the covenant is only made with the elect, and is unbreakable.



Ben Zartman said:


> Paedos accept them into the church upon birth, then wait for some nebulous "age of accountability" (see further upthread), and allow them the Table after "confirmation" (see upthread),


This is not true at all. Paedo-baptist churches search for the same credible profession of faith that Baptists have for admitting people to the table. Or do Baptists never fence the table at all? The previous mention of age of accountability was in the context of it being rejected, not accepted, in the paedo viewpoint.



Ben Zartman said:


> But seriously, do you not see a problem with stopping Peter's words on Pentecost mid-sentence? "To you and your children and to those who are far off, even as many as the Lord will call." This is one entire group, limited by those whom the Lord will effectually call. The promise is not "I will save you and your children also if only you repent." It is "I will save you if you will repent; I will save your children if they will repent; I will save those who are afar off if they will repent; indeed, I will save everyone whom I effectually call."


As Andrew mentioned, this is a strawman, of which you seem to be inordinately fond when it comes to describing the paedo position (I have dealt with three of them in this post already). Three paedo advocates have now extensively answered your distortions of the paedo viewpoint, and you haven't acknowledged any distortion on your part. I would imagine that there is not a single paedo advocate on this board who would tell you that you have accurately pegged the paedo viewpoint.

As to your understanding of Acts 2, why mention the children at all if there is no covenantal connection? As a matter of fact, Peter's words echo the promises made to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant, that God would be a God to Abraham, to Abraham's children, and that Abraham's offspring would be a blessing to the nations (corresponding to Peter's categories of "you," "your children," and "all who are far off"). Thus, Peter's words constitute an immensely strong echo of the Abrahamic promises, thus lending _deafening_ support for the paedo position.



Ben Zartman said:


> I did not ascribe "an age of accountability," it was mentioned by two paedobaptists above. I'm simply responding to it.


See above my answer in the third quotation.

Ben, you need to slow down, and read a LOT more paedo stuff before you critique us more. You do not have the handle on the paedo position you think you do. Read J.V. Fesko's Word, Water, and Spirit; the Strawbridge edited volume, and the Marcel book _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_ for starters.

Incidentally, 1 Corinthians 10 (and 1 Peter 3) show that baptism has its roots in the Old Testament, contrary to most Baptist claims. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 10 has an instance of baptizo being used of a group of people _no matter what age they were at the time_, thus including infants within the group of those being baptized. This baptism (along with all the other benefits and warnings of verses 1-5) is then intentionally said to be a type or pattern for us (1 Cor. 10:6). 1 Corinthians 10 is conclusive proof that baptizo is used of infants in the New Testament.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Taylor

Jason F. said:


> Paedobaptism is not something that can be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence, rather it's antithetical to the message of the gospel that God will save those whom he chooses to regardless of culture or genealogy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Jason F. said:


> This is the root of the matter for me. Paedobaptism is not something that can be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence, rather it's antithetical to the message of the gospel that God will save those whom he chooses to regardless of culture or genealogy.


OK. Let me ask you this: what is baptism?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> Not all Presbyterians or reformed believe in the age of accountability nor a papist confirmation. So again strawman. I’m wondering who you are arguing against here is some random person you came into contact with outside the Puritanboard of which most of us do not hold such views. Perhaps you could discern what we believe and then argue against us…


One difficulty here is that you paedobaptists are not monolithic in your views. So when I respond to one, others leap in and accuse me of demolishing straw men. In others of these endless threads, I've debated paedouniversalists, I've had "age of accountability" mentioned, I've heard "confirmation," (by the way, the word 'papist' was fetched in by you: how about straw men now?). I'm glad you believe none of these things--but why rage at me against ideas that I did not invent and have been suggested by other paedobaptists?
Also, if you believe that the salvation of parents does not guarantee that of children, how true can Dort's claim be that every unborn child of elect parents is regenerate? Isn't that inconsistent? Show me how it isn't.


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> One difficulty here is that you paedobaptists are not monolithic in your views. So when I respond to one, others leap in and accuse me of demolishing straw men. In others of these endless threads, I've debated paedouniversalists, I've had "age of accountability" mentioned, I've heard "confirmation," (by the way, the word 'papist' was fetched in by you: how about straw men now?). I'm glad you believe none of these things--but why rage at me against ideas that I did not invent and have been suggested by other paedobaptists?
> Also, if you believe that the salvation of parents does not guarantee that of children, how true can Dort's claim be that every unborn child of elect parents is regenerate? Isn't that inconsistent? Show me how it isn't.


Who here believes in age of accountability? Who here believes in something called confirmation? Who here believes the promise is "I will save you and your children also if only you repent."

If no one, then it is a strawman. You have to argue with the people you speak to not people not here.


No one here is raging.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.


This is a wonderful explanation of baptism, no doubt. With types and shadows in the past pointing to new unveiling of God's mercy in the future, baptism and the Lord's Supper becomes the fruit of seeds planted in the OT. We know where the Lord's Supper came from in the OT. Where does baptism come from?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Baptism is related to the promise like an engagement ring to a proposal. Baptism is God, to use anthropomorphic language, "putting His money where HIs mouth is." God does indeed promise salvation, but He does it in such a way that God-given faith is needed to connect the sign to the thing signified for baptism to be a means of grace. Without faith, baptism condemns. So, in your implication that baptism for infants doesn't do anything beyond what God would give anyone, you are forgetting the judgment side of baptism (see J.V. Fesko's _Word, Water, and Spirit_ for a brilliant exposition of this key baptism theme).
> 
> 
> Um, no. The external administration does NOT constitute a breakable covenant separate and distinct from the essence of the covenant. The essence of the covenant is only made with the elect, and is unbreakable.
> 
> 
> This is not true at all. Paedo-baptist churches search for the same credible profession of faith that Baptists have for admitting people to the table. Or do Baptists never fence the table at all? The previous mention of age of accountability was in the context of it being rejected, not accepted, in the paedo viewpoint.
> 
> 
> As Andrew mentioned, this is a strawman, of which you seem to be inordinately fond when it comes to describing the paedo position (I have dealt with three of them in this post already). Three paedo advocates have now extensively answered your distortions of the paedo viewpoint, and you haven't acknowledged any distortion on your part. I would imagine that there is not a single paedo advocate on this board who would tell you that you have accurately pegged the paedo viewpoint.
> 
> As to your understanding of Acts 2, why mention the children at all if there is no covenantal connection? As a matter of fact, Peter's words echo the promises made to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant, that God would be a God to Abraham, to Abraham's children, and that Abraham's offspring would be a blessing to the nations (corresponding to Peter's categories of "you," "your children," and "all who are far off"). Thus, Peter's words constitute an immensely strong echo of the Abrahamic promises, thus lending _deafening_ support for the paedo position.
> 
> 
> See above my answer in the third quotation.
> 
> Ben, you need to slow down, and read a LOT more paedo stuff before you critique us more. You do not have the handle on the paedo position you think you do. Read J.V. Fesko's Word, Water, and Spirit; the Strawbridge edited volume, and the Marcel book _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_ for starters.
> 
> Incidentally, 1 Corinthians 10 (and 1 Peter 3) show that baptism has its roots in the Old Testament, contrary to most Baptist claims. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 10 has an instance of baptizo being used of a group of people _no matter what age they were at the time_, thus including infants within the group of those being baptized. This baptism (along with all the other benefits and warnings of verses 1-5) is then intentionally said to be a type or pattern for us (1 Cor. 10:6). 1 Corinthians 10 is conclusive proof that baptizo is used of infants in the New Testament.


Well see, you seem to want to have it both ways. If infants are IN the covenant, but the covenant is only made with the elect, then only conclusion is that if they turn out to apostatize SOMEONE broke the covenant. The unbreakable covenant. Hmm. I simply can't understand this separation of essence from administration. Are they in or out?

In Acts 2, Peter mentioned the children because just a few weeks earlier, the multitude he was speaking to was yelling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him! His blood be on us and on our children!" They were still thinking within the OT covenantal framework, where Ham's descendants were cursed for their father's actions, where David's, Hezekiah's, and many another's children were brought under a curse for their father's misdeeds, and they had just called Christ's blood upon themselves and their children! Peter is reassuring them that Christ's forgiveness can extend not only to them, with His immediate blood on their hands, but to their posterity and the entire world--to as many as the Lord shall call. That's no reason to include children in a covenant--well, not in the essence a covenant, but somehow still in it, though they're holy, but they're still in their sins, unless they died unborn, so kind of sort of promised salvation but only if they believe, which is somehow better than the promise made to those who are afar off, who have the same promise, but are unclean because their parents weren't believers....you're right--I don't understand it at all. I think it's a system based on poor exegesis, and to say I need to study it more before I critique it--well, I could urge you to study Baptist theology more, because I'm convinced that if only you understood it, you'd believe it.
So where does that leave us? I think we have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye this side of glory, and perhaps the best we can do is not derail threads trying to convince each other of our views. The OP has been answered quite fully I believe, and I see no profit in continuing this here when we've had no success with it elsewhere.
Both the baptist and the paedobaptist views are valid confessional positions, and I for one am sorry I can't speak of them without making everybody angry.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Well see, you seem to want to have it both ways. If infants are IN the covenant, but the covenant is only made with the elect, then only conclusion is that if they turn out to apostatize SOMEONE broke the covenant. The unbreakable covenant. Hmm. I simply can't understand this separation of essence from administration. Are they in or out?
> 
> In Acts 2, Peter mentioned the children because just a few weeks earlier, the multitude he was speaking to was yelling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him! His blood be on us and on our children!" They were still thinking within the OT covenantal framework, where Ham's descendants were cursed for their father's actions, where David's, Hezekiah's, and many another's children were brought under a curse for their father's misdeeds, and they had just called Christ's blood upon themselves and their children! Peter is reassuring them that Christ's forgiveness can extend not only to them, with His immediate blood on their hands, but to their posterity and the entire world--to as many as the Lord shall call. That's no reason to include children in a covenant--well, not in the essence a covenant, but somehow still in it, though they're holy, but they're still in their sins, unless they died unborn, so kind of sort of promised salvation but only if they believe, which is somehow better than the promise made to those who are afar off, who have the same promise, but are unclean because their parents weren't believers....you're right--I don't understand it at all. I think it's a system based on poor exegesis, and to say I need to study it more before I critique it--well, I could urge you to study Baptist theology more, because I'm convinced that if only you understood it, you'd believe it.
> So where does that leave us? I think we have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye this side of glory, and perhaps the best we can do is not derail threads trying to convince each other of our views. The OP has been answered quite fully I believe, and I see no profit in continuing this here when we've had no success with it elsewhere.
> Both the baptist and the paedobaptist views are valid confessional positions, and I for one am sorry I can't speak of them without making everybody angry.


I'm not angry [emoji113][emoji846]. I love these types of threads. These discussions help sharpen our wits and convictions. Anything that makes me have to grab my Bible is A-OK with me. I'm learning so much in such a short span of time.

A wise man once said "if you are the smartest person in the room, you've entered the wrong room". I am in the right room (thread) indeed [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

Ben Zartman said:


> Well see, you seem to want to have it both ways. If infants are IN the covenant, but the covenant is only made with the elect, then only conclusion is that if they turn out to apostatize SOMEONE broke the covenant. The unbreakable covenant. Hmm. I simply can't understand this separation of essence from administration. Are they in or out?
> 
> In Acts 2, Peter mentioned the children because just a few weeks earlier, the multitude he was speaking to was yelling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him! His blood be on us and on our children!" They were still thinking within the OT covenantal framework, where Ham's descendants were cursed for their father's actions, where David's, Hezekiah's, and many another's children were brought under a curse for their father's misdeeds, and they had just called Christ's blood upon themselves and their children! Peter is reassuring them that Christ's forgiveness can extend not only to them, with His immediate blood on their hands, but to their posterity and the entire world--to as many as the Lord shall call. That's no reason to include children in a covenant--well, not in the essence a covenant, but somehow still in it, though they're holy, but they're still in their sins, unless they died unborn, so kind of sort of promised salvation but only if they believe, which is somehow better than the promise made to those who are afar off, who have the same promise, but are unclean because their parents weren't believers....you're right--I don't understand it at all. I think it's a system based on poor exegesis, and to say I need to study it more before I critique it--well, I could urge you to study Baptist theology more, because I'm convinced that if only you understood it, you'd believe it.
> So where does that leave us? I think we have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye this side of glory, and perhaps the best we can do is not derail threads trying to convince each other of our views. The OP has been answered quite fully I believe, and I see no profit in continuing this here when we've had no success with it elsewhere.
> Both the baptist and the paedobaptist views are valid confessional positions, and I for one am sorry I can't speak of them without making everybody angry.


I appreciate all of your additions to the thread as they have facilitated conversation, which I am sitting back and learning from. Thank you.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ben Zartman said:


> If infants are IN the covenant, but the covenant is only made with the elect, then only conclusion is that if they turn out to apostatize SOMEONE broke the covenant. The unbreakable covenant. Hmm. I simply can't understand this separation of essence from administration. Are they in or out?



What you are summarizing is Doug Wilson's theology, not Reformed theology. According to Olevianus and others, they break the administration of the covenant, not its essence.



> but are unclean because their parents weren't believers....you're right--I don't understand it at all.



That's almost literally how Paul described it.

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

RamistThomist said:


> What you are summarizing is Doug Wilson's theology, not Reformed theology. According to Olevianus and others, they break the administration of the covenant, not its essence.
> 
> 
> 
> That's almost literally how Paul described it.


So the administration is breakable, but not the essence. OK.
I don't see a place for this thought in Scripture, since the New Covenant is not like the Old, because it is founded on better promises. One of those promises that baptists historically recognize is the everyone who is in covenant with God is really, actually, truly in covenant with God--there is no "administrative" middle ground. They are either sinners in Adam or saints in Christ.
We see the covenantal inclusion of children in the OT as a picture: there was a people of God, but they were not all regenerate. It was a type of the time to come when there would be a people of God who WERE all regenerate "They shall all know me." The physical birth that got you into the OT covenant community served as a picture of the New Birth that gets you into the NT covenant community. It is not less inclusive because there's no longer a mixed multitude: it is more inclusive because the only requirement to join is repentance and faith, which is offered to everyone who hears the Gospel, without them having to join a physical nation living in Palestine and burdened with ordinances that could not take away sins, but only pointed to the Messiah who was to come. How much more glorious this New Covenant is!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> So the administration is breakable, but not the essence. OK.
> I don't see a place for this thought in Scripture, since the New Covenant is not like the Old, because it is founded on better promises. One of those promises that baptists historically recognize is the everyone who is in covenant with God is really, actually, truly in covenant with God--there is no "administrative" middle ground. They are either sinners in Adam or saints in Christ.
> We see the covenantal inclusion of children in the OT as a picture: there was a people of God, but they were not all regenerate. It was a type of the time to come when there would be a people of God who WERE all regenerate "They shall all know me." The physical birth that got you into the OT covenant community served as a picture of the New Birth that gets you into the NT covenant community. It is not less inclusive because there's no longer a mixed multitude: it is more inclusive because the only requirement to join is repentance and faith, which is offered to everyone who hears the Gospel, without them having to join a physical nation living in Palestine and burdened with ordinances that could not take away sins, but only pointed to the Messiah who was to come. How much more glorious this New Covenant is!


“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31‭-‬34 ESV
-------------
"I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord."
-------------
"And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord."
-------------
"And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’..."
-------------
"...no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother..."


Hmm...[emoji848][emoji848][emoji848]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
> Jeremiah 31:31‭-‬34 ESV
> -------------
> "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord."
> -------------
> "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord."
> -------------
> "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’..."
> -------------
> "...no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother..."
> 
> 
> Hmm...[emoji848][emoji848][emoji848]
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I see what you're asking, and this teaching of "Know the Lord," does not stand for the instruction all believers must receive all their lives: it means that members of the covenant community will not have to urge each other, _evangelize_ each other to come to know God savingly, like the did in OT times--every member of that new covenant community WILL be saved, and will "Know the Lord" in that sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ben Zartman said:


> So the administration is breakable, but not the essence. OK.
> I don't see a place for this thought in Scripture



Romans 3 and 9 mention those who are Jews internally and externally.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> Well see, you seem to want to have it both ways. If infants are IN the covenant, but the covenant is only made with the elect, then only conclusion is that if they turn out to apostatize SOMEONE broke the covenant. The unbreakable covenant. Hmm. I simply can't understand this separation of essence from administration. Are they in or out?
> 
> In Acts 2, Peter mentioned the children because just a few weeks earlier, the multitude he was speaking to was yelling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him! His blood be on us and on our children!" They were still thinking within the OT covenantal framework, where Ham's descendants were cursed for their father's actions, where David's, Hezekiah's, and many another's children were brought under a curse for their father's misdeeds, and they had just called Christ's blood upon themselves and their children! Peter is reassuring them that Christ's forgiveness can extend not only to them, with His immediate blood on their hands, but to their posterity and the entire world--to as many as the Lord shall call. That's no reason to include children in a covenant--well, not in the essence a covenant, but somehow still in it, though they're holy, but they're still in their sins, unless they died unborn, so kind of sort of promised salvation but only if they believe, which is somehow better than the promise made to those who are afar off, who have the same promise, but are unclean because their parents weren't believers....you're right--I don't understand it at all. I think it's a system based on poor exegesis, and to say I need to study it more before I critique it--well, I could urge you to study Baptist theology more, because I'm convinced that if only you understood it, you'd believe it.
> So where does that leave us? I think we have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye this side of glory, and perhaps the best we can do is not derail threads trying to convince each other of our views. The OP has been answered quite fully I believe, and I see no profit in continuing this here when we've had no success with it elsewhere.
> Both the baptist and the paedobaptist views are valid confessional positions, and I for one am sorry I can't speak of them without making everybody angry.


The remaining essence/administration distinction is indicative of the fact that we live in the already/not yet between the first and second coming of Christ. You ask whether they are in or out. Is an affianced woman in or out of marriage? 

With regard to Acts 2, what Peter is saying is not that they are included from the standpoint of having been left out previously, but that they continue to be included in the covenant community. 

So far in the debate, you have not brought up any issues where you think I have misunderstood Baptist theology on these points. Do you have any particular points in mind? I and others have pointed out areas where your knowledge of the paedo position seems deficient. Most of us do not think that you have to believe the paedo position in order to understand it. But when you accuse the paedo position of teaching that salvation comes by genealogy, the paedos will wonder if you really understand the paedo position, since none of us teach it. I believe I understand the Baptist position well enough to know at least the general contours of the arguments. The fact that you have not accused me yet of distorting the credo position tells me I am at least in the ballpark. 

As far as success goes, greater clarity of position is always a success in a debate, and several have already voiced their appreciation of certain points being made clearer. One side convincing another is not the only measure of success in a debate. 

As far as anger goes, you haven't even remotely gotten close to making me angry. Pointing out places of disagreement, different points of debate on exegesis, and pointing out strawmen does not constitute anger on my part at least. I know the other paedo advocates on this thread well enough to know that they are not angry either.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Ben Zartman

RamistThomist said:


> Romans 3 and 9 mention those who are Jews internally and externally.


But Jacob, that is speaking of Jews who are presuming on their physical generation (as per the OT, which is abrogated by that point) to think that they are thereby right with God. Paul is saying, "no: physical birth does not make New Covenant inclusion, only New Birth"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> The remaining essence/administration distinction is indicative of the fact that we live in the already/not yet between the first and second coming of Christ. You ask whether they are in or out. Is an affianced woman in or out of marriage?
> 
> With regard to Acts 2, what Peter is saying is not that they are included from the standpoint of having been left out previously, but that they continue to be included in the covenant community.
> 
> So far in the debate, you have not brought up any issues where you think I have misunderstood Baptist theology on these points. Do you have any particular points in mind? I and others have pointed out areas where your knowledge of the paedo position seems deficient. Most of us do not think that you have to believe the paedo position in order to understand it. But when you accuse the paedo position of teaching that salvation comes by genealogy, the paedos will wonder if you really understand the paedo position, since none of us teach it. I believe I understand the Baptist position well enough to know at least the general contours of the arguments. The fact that you have not accused me yet of distorting the credo position tells me I am at least in the ballpark.
> 
> As far as success goes, greater clarity of position is always a success in a debate, and several have already voiced their appreciation of certain points being made clearer. One side convincing another is not the only measure of success in a debate.
> 
> As far as anger goes, you haven't even remotely gotten close to making me angry. Pointing out places of disagreement, different points of debate on exegesis, and pointing out strawmen does not constitute anger on my part at least. I know the other paedo advocates on this thread well enough to know that they are not angry either.


Well, sir--I absolutely think you misunderstand baptist theology, since you don't see that while physical birth was a type for OT times of New Birth, and inclusion in a breakable covenant was looking toward the day when there would be a better one--one where all the members were regenerate because they had been born--not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God. Perhaps you understand this and reject it.....I'm not sure.
As for straw men, I responded to Ma Rothenbuler's post, using terms she herself used, and I get accused of straw men! And when I remind Pastor Barnes that I'm interacting with many different interlocutors here with varying beliefs, I get accused of straw-manning again! There are straw men fighting my imaginary straw men...I'm gonna need a tractor.

As for Acts 2, clearly we disagree. These were members of the recently-abrogated old Covenant, needing to exhibit faith and repentance in order to enter the new one. But tell me, were "those who are far off" also still part of the covenant community, to use your words? Don't you take that group to be "everyone everywhere who hears the Gospel until the Lord returns?" and if so, why separate the sentence to: (you and your children)/(those who are far off)/(even as many as the Lord shall call) ? Don't you find that separation artificial and contrived, given that Peter spoke it practically in one breath?

I am glad you're not angry. While I find these discussions very circular and often frustrating--as though folk are deliberately being obtuse--I do enjoy learning more of what others believe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> This is a wonderful explanation of baptism, no doubt. With types and shadows in the past pointing to new unveiling of God's mercy in the future, baptism and the Lord's Supper becomes the fruit of seeds planted in the OT. We know where the Lord's Supper came from in the OT. Where does baptism come from?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


A few times in this thread you've linked the Passover/Lord's Supper and circumcision/baptism together in some way - or at least alluded to a comparison/connection - but I don't believe the posts got a direct reply. I think it's an interesting point, so, if you don’t mind, I'm curious to get your thoughts on the following:

Who were the parties involved (partaking) in the Passover? Who are the parties involved (partaking) of the Lord's Supper?

Who were the parties involved in (receiving) circumcision? Who are the parties involved in (receiving) baptism?

If there are different parties who partake of the Lord's Supper vs. are baptized, why is that?


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> A few times in this thread you've linked the Passover/Lord's Supper and circumcision/baptism together in some way - or at least alluded to a comparison/connection - but I don't believe the posts got a direct reply. I think it's an interesting point, so, if you don’t mind, I'm curious to get your thoughts on the following:
> 
> Who were the parties involved (partaking) in the Passover? Who are the parties involved (partaking) of the Lord's Supper?
> 
> Who were the parties involved in (receiving) circumcision? Who are the parties involved in (receiving) baptism?
> 
> If there are different parties who partake of the Lord's Supper vs. are baptized, why is that?


This was my next question! [emoji846] This is where I am getting at, to see both perspectives side-by-side. You took the words right out of my mouth. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> A few times in this thread you've linked the Passover/Lord's Supper and circumcision/baptism together in some way - or at least alluded to a comparison/connection - but I don't believe the posts got a direct reply. I think it's an interesting point, so, if you don’t mind, I'm curious to get your thoughts on the following:
> 
> Who were the parties involved (partaking) in the Passover? Who are the parties involved (partaking) of the Lord's Supper?
> 
> Who were the parties involved in (receiving) circumcision? Who are the parties involved in (receiving) baptism?
> 
> If there are different parties who partake of the Lord's Supper vs. are baptized, why is that?



The parties that partake in the supper are in the church:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1 Corinthians 11:27‭-‬28 

Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 29, Westminster Confession of Faith

Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified & all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally, or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of Believers, in that Ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 30, 1689 London Baptist Confession


The recipients of baptism are in the church.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18‭-‬20 ESV

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:37‭-‬41 ESV

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:12 ESV

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:14‭-‬15 ESV

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Acts 16:31‭-‬33 ESV

Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. —Chapter 28, Westminster Confession of Faith

Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. —Chapter 29, 1689 London Baptist Confession

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

Here's where the rubber meets the road. 
1) The parties involved in the Passover were entire families. Yes, adults and children were the primary participants. However, the blood of the slain lamb covered the ENTIRE household. There were spiritual benifits in play that graciously covered the infants as well.. Otherwise the firstborn sons wouldve just died because they were relegated to just milk. It would be amiss to say the physical aspect of the Pasover was the only thing in play here.

2)The parties involved in baptism is the church. Between the 1689 and the WCF, I will have to say I affirm the latter on this one. Infants and children are a part of the household of faith too. They are a part of the visible church (some of them are the elect too!) otherwise they would be left out of the letters Paul wrote to the church in Corinth and Ephasus:

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 1:1‭-‬2 ESV

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
Ephesians 6:1‭-‬3 ESV

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

I will end on this. Paul would be amazed at our treatment of our children regarding this matter. Clearly, the church visible holds more than just one type of people. You have the short, tall, rich, poor, strong and weak in the faith, etc. Yet here we are making distinctions in the body between those who can talk vs. those who can't. 

Who are we to make distinctions of AGE when THAT is not explicitly commanded in scripture? That's is not an accusation, dear brother...that is what we are doing! This is where I differ from by fellow Baptists and lean towards the Paedo position. This is where the rubber meets the road for me. 

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 3:27‭-‬29 ESV

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> The parties that partake in the supper are in the church:
> 
> Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
> 1 Corinthians 11:27‭-‬28
> 
> Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 29, Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified & all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally, or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of Believers, in that Ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 30, 1689 London Baptist Confession
> 
> 
> The recipients of baptism are in the church.
> 
> And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
> Matthew 28:18‭-‬20 ESV
> 
> Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
> Acts 2:37‭-‬41 ESV
> 
> But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
> Acts 8:12 ESV
> 
> One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
> Acts 16:14‭-‬15 ESV
> 
> And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
> Acts 16:31‭-‬33 ESV
> 
> Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. —Chapter 28, Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. —Chapter 29, 1689 London Baptist Confession
> 
> --------------
> 
> Here's where the rubber meets the road.
> 1) The parties involved in the Passover were entire families. Yes, adults and children were the primary participants. However, the blood of the slain lamb covered the ENTIRE household. There were spiritual benifits in play that graciously covered the infants as well.. Otherwise the firstborn sons wouldve just died because they were relegated to just milk. It would be amiss to say the physical aspect of the Pasover was the only thing in play here.
> 
> 2)The parties involved in baptism is the church. Between the 1689 and the WCF, I will have to say I affirm the latter on this one. Infants and children are a part of the household of faith too. They are a part of the visible church (some of them are the elect too!) otherwise they would be left out of the letters Paul wrote to the church in Corinth and Ephasus:
> 
> To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
> 1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV
> 
> For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV
> 
> Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> Ephesians 1:1‭-‬2 ESV
> 
> Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
> Ephesians 6:1‭-‬3 ESV
> 
> --------------
> 
> I will end on this. Paul would be amazed at our treatment of our children regarding this matter. Clearly, the church visible holds more than just one type of people. You have the short, tall, rich, poor, strong and weak in the faith, etc. Yet here we are making distinctions in the body between those who can talk vs. those who can't.
> 
> Who are we to make distinctions of AGE when THAT is not explicitly commanded in scripture? That's is not an accusation, dear brother...that is what we are doing! This is where I differ from by fellow Baptists and lean towards the Paedo position. This is where the rubber meets the road for me.
> 
> For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
> Galatians 3:27‭-‬29 ESV
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


The problem is that you're making a 1:1 comparison of the type VS the reality. Passover foreshadowed Christ, but did not foreshadow perfectly. The blood of the slain lamb protected from physical death in that instance: it did not serve for the salvation of the soul. Many of the multitude who believed enough to partake in the Passover later apostatized and murmured and were consumed by serpents and swallowed up by the earth. But everyone who is hidden in Christ will not fall away because Christ keeps him. Do you see how Christ is better than the Passover?
Circumcision marked one out as a member of a visible people, bound by a covenant that they could break, and did break. Baptism marks you out as a member of a visible people (the church), bound by a better covenant than the old, one that cannot be broken. Physical descent is not what matters: ("think not to say to yourselves, 'we have Abraham for our father'"...) being born again into God's family is what matters.
If you believe in original sin--that is, that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God; if you believe what Jesus said: "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," you'll see that whom you were born to does not change your status as fallen in Adam.
To do in the New Covenant what was done in the Old simply because it was done (I'm gonna get a strawman accusation here!) is to misunderstand the shadow/reality relationship. I believe that's what paedobaptists do: they miss what the type meant, and what the reality is now.

Even the WCF bit on baptism you cited nails the paedo coffin lid firmly on: "...of his (the baptized person's) ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins..." But the subject, if original sin is understood, has no reason to be presumed ingrafted into Christ--not salvifically--regenerate, or of having his sins remitted. So it's done in advance--done in hope, even--but wrongly done because they enter the New Covenant only when they have new hearts.
You'll say that baptists can't know infallibly that their subjects are regenerate--no, but because fallible people are administering a sign, and it will be fallibly administered, doesn't mean we go off the rails and slosh water on everyone and hope God sorts it out in the end. We judge as best we can according to Scripture, and know that the Lord knows those who are His. Many will be in glory who were never baptized at all--it's just a visible sign, for a visible time: it does nothing toward the salvation of the soul.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> The parties that partake in the supper are in the church:
> 
> Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
> 1 Corinthians 11:27‭-‬28
> 
> Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 29, Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Of the Lord's Supper, Section 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified & all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally, or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of Believers, in that Ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses. —Chapter 30, 1689 London Baptist Confession
> 
> 
> The recipients of baptism are in the church.
> 
> And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
> Matthew 28:18‭-‬20 ESV
> 
> Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
> Acts 2:37‭-‬41 ESV
> 
> But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
> Acts 8:12 ESV
> 
> One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
> Acts 16:14‭-‬15 ESV
> 
> And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
> Acts 16:31‭-‬33 ESV
> 
> Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. —Chapter 28, Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Of Baptism, Section 1: Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. —Chapter 29, 1689 London Baptist Confession
> 
> --------------
> 
> Here's where the rubber meets the road.
> 1) The parties involved in the Passover were entire families. Yes, adults and children were the primary participants. However, the blood of the slain lamb covered the ENTIRE household. There were spiritual benifits in play that graciously covered the infants as well.. Otherwise the firstborn sons wouldve just died because they were relegated to just milk. It would be amiss to say the physical aspect of the Pasover was the only thing in play here.
> 
> 2)The parties involved in baptism is the church. Between the 1689 and the WCF, I will have to say I affirm the latter on this one. Infants and children are a part of the household of faith too. They are a part of the visible church (some of them are the elect too!) otherwise they would be left out of the letters Paul wrote to the church in Corinth and Ephasus:
> 
> To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
> 1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV
> 
> For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV
> 
> Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> Ephesians 1:1‭-‬2 ESV
> 
> Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
> Ephesians 6:1‭-‬3 ESV
> 
> --------------
> 
> I will end on this. Paul would be amazed at our treatment of our children regarding this matter. Clearly, the church visible holds more than just one type of people. You have the short, tall, rich, poor, strong and weak in the faith, etc. Yet here we are making distinctions in the body between those who can talk vs. those who can't.
> 
> Who are we to make distinctions of AGE when THAT is not explicitly commanded in scripture? That's is not an accusation, dear brother...that is what we are doing! This is where I differ from by fellow Baptists and lean towards the Paedo position. This is where the rubber meets the road for me.
> 
> For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
> Galatians 3:27‭-‬29 ESV
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Thank you for the reply, and I appreciate the extensive Scripture and confession references. However, I don't think you answered two of my questions - who were the parties to circumcision, and if there are different parties for the Lord's Supper and baptism, why is that? Although, maybe my last question is N/A as in different parts of your post you said both those who partake in the Lord's Supper and the recipients of baptism are in the church... although I'm sure even if you are a paedo-leaning baptist, you'd still want to make some qualifications to that. Unless you are also leaning towards paedocommunion, in which case please disregard the rest of this post.

Let me try a different tack. If you pose that Paul would be amazed at our treatment our children, let me posit that rather, Moses would be flabbergasted at your view. I say this lightheartedly, but I'm trying to understand why you repeatedly try to link the Lord's Supper/baptism with the Passover/circumcision, yet are inconsistent in your proposed application of them. Let me also pre-emptively challenge the fact that infants in Israel weren't partaking in the actual Passover meal (your reference to first born sons only drinking milk) as they can start incorporating solids into their diet around or shortly after 6 months.

Look at the institution of the Passover ordinance in Exodus 12, particularly verse 48. One could suggest that the Passover table was "fenced" by circumcision, in other words, even if you were a stranger, you were able to partake as long as you were circumcised. Would you agree that one may partake in the Lord's Supper as long as they are baptized? Again - if not, why not?

_The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version_
Q.97: What is a sacrament of the new covenant?
A: A sacrament of the new covenant is a holy ritual instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

Q.98: What are the sacraments of the new covenant?
A: The sacraments of the new covenant are baptism and the Lord’s supper.

Q.102: Are the infants of professing believers to be baptized?
A: The infants of professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, nor certain inference from them, to baptize such.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

The Lord’s Supper replaces all feasts, not just Passover. Furthermore, the Egyptian Passover was not equivalent to the annual Passover in terms of its requirements and participants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Regardless of whether children participated in the Passover or not, that's not really the point. We don't exclude children from the Lord's Table because they were excluded from the Passover, or because they cannot be believers, but because there is a command in the NT for those coming to the Lord's Table to examine themselves, which implies they must have the capacity to do so, and that excludes young children.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Good perspective, but I'm actually just trying to understand Anthony's point of view given specific things that have been posted in this thread. Thanks!


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> Baptism marks you out as a member of a visible people (the church), bound by a better covenant than the old, one that cannot be broken


So what you are saying is you baptize those members of the visible church, and that equates to the invisible church? 

This is why so many particular Baptists are cozy with FV. To be frank, you keep twisting yourself in knots over the visible/invisible. You try to maintain it on one hand and take it away with the other. 

As regards physical birth and circumcision, they are not 1:1. I said this earlier (maybe in a different thread), Abraham was given circumcision as a _believer_ not as a Eberite or Terahite. And those proper recipients were all in his household not just his physical progeny, and through the ages until Christ those who joined the covenant people of God, desiring to share in their faith commitments.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

Eyedoc84 said:


> The Lord’s Supper replaces all feasts, not just Passover. Furthermore, the Egyptian Passover was not equivalent to the annual Passover in terms of its requirements and participants.


Thank you for the clarification! I wanted to say this but wasn't sure. I failed to point that out when it counted. Apologies.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> Thank you for the clarification! I wanted to say this but wasn't sure. I failed to point that out when it counted. Apologies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Hmm, not sure I follow. If that's your view, then what is the purpose of referencing the Passover (or all feasts) in connection to circumcision/baptism at all? Seems like there is at least implicit acknowledgement that the parties involved are different for OT ordinances vs. NT. So why are we not in agreement that the requirement for the Lord's Supper is to examine oneself and the requirement for baptism is to believe, or the other side of the coin, to repent?


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Hmm, not sure I follow. If that's your view, then what is the purpose of referencing the Passover (or all feasts) in connection to circumcision/baptism at all? Seems like there is at least implicit acknowledgement that the parties involved are different for OT ordinances vs. NT. So why are we not in agreement that the requirement for the Lord's Supper is to examine oneself and the requirement for baptism is belief, or the other side of the coin, to repent?


In the NT we have the example of the Apostles baptising the households of those who believed and repented (corresponding to OT practice vis-a-vis circumcision to a degree). But again, we do not say the subjects of baptism must correspond to the subjects of circumcision - females get baptised too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Thank you for the reply, and I appreciate the extensive Scripture and confession references. However, I don't think you answered two of my questions - who were the parties to circumcision, and if there are different parties for the Lord's Supper and baptism, why is that? Although, maybe my last question is N/A as in different parts of your post you said both those who partake in the Lord's Supper and the recipients of baptism are in the church... although I'm sure even if you are a paedo-leaning baptist, you'd still want to make some qualifications to that. Unless you are also leaning towards paedocommunion, in which case please disregard the rest of this post.
> 
> Let me try a different tack. If you pose that Paul would be amazed at our treatment our children, let me posit that rather, Moses would be flabbergasted at your view. I say this lightheartedly, but I'm trying to understand why you repeatedly try to link the Lord's Supper/baptism with the Passover/circumcision, yet are inconsistent in your proposed application of them. Let me also pre-emptively challenge the fact that infants in Israel weren't partaking in the actual Passover meal (your reference to first born sons only drinking milk) as they can start incorporating solids into their diet around or shortly after 6 months.
> 
> Look at the institution of the Passover ordinance in Exodus 12, particularly verse 48. One could suggest that the Passover table was "fenced" by circumcision, in other words, even if you were a stranger, you were able to partake as long as you were circumcised. Would you agree that one may partake in the Lord's Supper as long as they are baptized? Again - if not, why not?
> 
> _The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version_
> Q.97: What is a sacrament of the new covenant?
> A: A sacrament of the new covenant is a holy ritual instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.
> 
> Q.98: What are the sacraments of the new covenant?
> A: The sacraments of the new covenant are baptism and the Lord’s supper.
> 
> Q.102: Are the infants of professing believers to be baptized?
> A: The infants of professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, nor certain inference from them, to baptize such.


I used the Passover as an example to show that even though infants were not able to participate, they were protected from the curse of the death of the firstborn. 

I am talking about the spirit of the letter here. Not just physical meat, blood and water.

God is gracious to the children of believers. Period. Thematically, I used the Israelites in Egypt to point that out. The little ones were helpless against the curses, yet by being in a household covered by the blood of the lamb they were spared. The little ones were helpless against the raging waters of the sea and of the host of Pharoah's warriors, yet the Lord allowed them to cross.

This is about more than simply eating, drinking, and bathing. It's about God's disposition towards those who are helpless in their estate.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> In the NT we have the example of the Apostles baptising the households of those who believed and repented (corresponding to OT practice vis-a-vis circumcision to a degree).


I agree with the catechism answer I quoted that this provides no certain (or necessary) inference.



Scottish Presbyterian said:


> But again, we do not say the subjects of baptism must correspond to the subjects of circumcision - females get baptised too.


Phil D, in post #94, addressed this line of reasoning so I'll leave it at that.



Romans678 said:


> I used the Passover as an example to show that even though infants were not able to participate, they were protected from the curse of the death of the firstborn.
> 
> I am talking about the spirit of the letter here. Not just physical meat, blood and water.
> 
> God is gracious to the children of believers. Period. Thematically, I used the Israelites in Egypt to point that out. The little ones were helpless against the curses, yet by being in a household covered by the blood of the lamb they were spared. The little ones were helpless against the raging waters of the sea and of the host of Pharoah's warriors, yet the Lord allowed them to cross.
> 
> This is about more than simply eating, drinking, and bathing. It's about God's disposition towards those who are helpless in their estate.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I agree with what you're saying here, I'm just not sure how any of that leads one to the practice of infant baptism. I think you would agree with me that there are manifold ways that "God is gracious to the children of believers" even if we don't sprinkle them. Perhaps that is where we have the most agreement on the topic as we each seek to be Biblical through and through (and also getting back a little closer to the OP). If so, in the words of Charles Simeon, "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again."

Appreciate the dialogue - thanks all! I just wanted to explore this aspect of the discussion since it wasn't as directly being flushed out in the thread.. and I actually had to register to do so.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I agree with the catechism answer I quoted that this provides no certain (or necessary) inference.
> 
> 
> Phil D, in post #94, addressed this line of reasoning so I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> I agree with what you're saying here, I'm just not sure how any of that leads one to the practice of infant baptism. I think you would agree with me that there are manifold ways that "God is gracious to the children of believers" even if we don't sprinkle them. Perhaps that is where we have the most agreement on the topic as we each seek to be Biblical through and through (and also getting back a little closer to the OP). If so, in the words of Charles Simeon, "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again."
> 
> Appreciate the dialogue - thanks all! I just wanted to explore this aspect of the discussion since it wasn't as directly being flushed out in the thread.. and I actually had to register to do so.


Agreed. Iron sharpens iron. I can appreciate a light sparring of ideas. It keeps the brain strong. God bless you brother.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

As to whether paodobaptists believe their children will automatically be saved, I've never heard or read that specific claim. However, I've wondered about something said in the Belgic Confession that seems to come close.

"[And] indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons..." (Article 34)


----------



## Eyedoc84

Phil D. said:


> As to whether paodobaptists believe their children will automatically be saved, I've never heard or read that specific claim. However, I've wondered about something said in the Belgic Confession that seems to come close.
> 
> "[And] indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons..." (Article 34)


I don’t see this statement as saying Christ’s blood automatically atones for every child of believers any more than it is saying it does so for every adult person. It’s saying that the children of believers are not excluded on the basis of being infants. I find it perfectly congruent with Dordt and WCF.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> As to whether paodobaptists believe their children will automatically be saved, I've never heard or read that specific claim. However, I've wondered about something said in the Belgic Confession that seems to come close.
> 
> "[And] indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons..." (Article 34)


"Children of the faithful" sounds about right to me.

This is just me talking...but if you are with multiple children, faithful, and walking humbly near to Christ, one of them knucklehead babies better be praising the Lord! [emoji16] If not, and not one of your children know the Lord...that's a telling scenario of your own profession of faith. Know what I mean?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

Eyedoc84 said:


> I don’t see this statement as saying Christ’s blood automatically atones for every child of believers any more than it is saying it does so for every adult person. It’s saying that the children of believers are not excluded on the basis of being infants. I find it perfectly congruent with Dordt and WCF.



Fair enough. I guess I prefer the more specific language used in similar context by the WCF of "elect infants."


----------



## Afterthought

"[And] indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons..." (Article 34)

It is a matter of revelation that Christ has his elect among children of believers. After all, what is an elect adult but one who was an elect infant once? Those elect children who are saved in infancy had Christ's blood shed for them and are washed by the blood of Christ, even as adult persons are. That is all I see in this statement. There is great biblical hope that God will save them: barring the qualification of divine election, God's promise is to be a God to us and to our children.

Edit: I see now someone already answered this. My mistake!


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> Well, sir--I absolutely think you misunderstand baptist theology, since you don't see that while physical birth was a type for OT times of New Birth, and inclusion in a breakable covenant was looking toward the day when there would be a better one--one where all the members were regenerate because they had been born--not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God. Perhaps you understand this and reject it.....I'm not sure.
> As for straw men, I responded to Ma Rothenbuler's post, using terms she herself used, and I get accused of straw men! And when I remind Pastor Barnes that I'm interacting with many different interlocutors here with varying beliefs, I get accused of straw-manning again! There are straw men fighting my imaginary straw men...I'm gonna need a tractor.
> 
> As for Acts 2, clearly we disagree. These were members of the recently-abrogated old Covenant, needing to exhibit faith and repentance in order to enter the new one. But tell me, were "those who are far off" also still part of the covenant community, to use your words? Don't you take that group to be "everyone everywhere who hears the Gospel until the Lord returns?" and if so, why separate the sentence to: (you and your children)/(those who are far off)/(even as many as the Lord shall call) ? Don't you find that separation artificial and contrived, given that Peter spoke it practically in one breath?
> 
> I am glad you're not angry. While I find these discussions very circular and often frustrating--as though folk are deliberately being obtuse--I do enjoy learning more of what others believe.


Ben, as it turns out, I have seen and understand these arguments and reject them. Be wary of equating understanding an argument and accepting it. Paedos believe that salvation was unbreakable in the OT, and that the essence of the covenant of grace is salvation in OT times just as much as in NT times, and that it is the same salvation in Christ. Furthermore, there was an outward administration just as much in the NT as in the OT times. If you are a Calvinist, and I have every reason to believe you are, soteriologically, and the OT covenants of grace were breakable, then how could OT saints have an unbreakable salvation? What covenant was it part of? If OT covenants were all breakable, then there is no salvation by grace through faith in OT times, unless you believe salvation had no connection whatsoever to OT covenants, and that would be quite impossible to prove from Scripture. Salvation is ALWAYS covenantal in Scripture. 

As to strawman arguments, there is at least one to which ALL the paedos in this thread have responded to in _exactly the same way_ (the erroneous statement that paedos believe in salvation by genealogy). Every last one of us who have mentioned strawman arguments have said it on this thread. Doesn't seem to have penetrated yet that this is a caricature. Instead, you are throwing up what appears to be a smokescreen of responding to many different individuals, as if we didn't agree that this one, at least, was a strawman all paedos agree is a strawman. The only people who might even come close to saying this are FV'ers, not confessional Presbyterians. Do you or do you not see that this is a caricature? 

In Acts 2, those who were far off are the Gentiles. Speaking a number of things in one breath does not mean that they have to mean the same things. It does not control the meaning of the phrases. Those who were far off, as Peter says in 1 Peter, are those who were not God's people. The progression appears to be "you, those close to you, and those far off from you." Just because Peter added the last phrase doesn't mean they have to somehow be part of the covenant at that moment. And that, in turn, says nothing about whether the children were included in the new covenant. There is NO Scripture ANYWHERE in the NT that says children are not now part of the new covenant. Instead, they are called holy in 1 Corinthians 7. They are invited to come to Christ as infants, with Christ even saying that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (brephos, infants). Do pray tell me how they can have the kingdom of God, but should be restrained from having the sign of the kingdom?

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 2 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Would Calvinistic Baptists say that those who are in the administration of the covenant of grace are in it in the same way? As some Dutch thinkers used to say, "head for head?"


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

RamistThomist said:


> Would Calvinistic Baptists say that those who are in the administration of the covenant of grace are in it in the same way? As some Dutch thinkers used to say, "head for head?"



This talk of "administration of the covenant of grace" isn't helpful in this case because it tries to apply paedobaptistic assumptions and terminology into a system that doesn't admit them.

To answer this question I'd need you drill down a little deeper into _exactly what you mean_ when you use the phrase "administration of the covenant of grace" _with respect to this question_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Everyone believes in some form of an outward administration of the covenant of grace, although Baptists would probably recoil at the language, understandably. It simply means "the church and it's functions" - i.e. teaching, worship, the sacraments, discipline. Both Baptists and Reformed perform an "outward administration" of all these things. I have never heard of a Baptist saying, "now, before I give you the Lord's supper, let me take a peek at your soul with my soul goggles and make sure you're regenerate". Yes, they try to get as close as possible and only admit those to the table that have professed faith (as do reformed churches), but in reality, it is an "outward administration" to physical people who may or may not (but hopefully are) truly regenerate. That's the best we can do in this life. Baptists as well as Reformed know that their churches are a mixed body, and as such, they all have an outward administration of the various aspects of the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Eyedoc84 said:


> So what you are saying is you baptize those members of the visible church, and that equates to the invisible church?
> 
> This is why so many particular Baptists are cozy with FV. To be frank, you keep twisting yourself in knots over the visible/invisible. You try to maintain it on one hand and take it away with the other.
> 
> As regards physical birth and circumcision, they are not 1:1. I said this earlier (maybe in a different thread), Abraham was given circumcision as a _believer_ not as a Eberite or Terahite. And those proper recipients were all in his household not just his physical progeny, and through the ages until Christ those who joined the covenant people of God, desiring to share in their faith commitments.


What I'm saying is that the proper subjects of baptism and entry into the visible church should already have become members of the invisible church by having been born again. There's a proper order. "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you..."
Because the visible church is administered by fallible human ministers, some false professors sneak in. Mostly they are found out and excommunicated; many will perhaps not be found out till the last day. Doesn't change what should be.
I'm sorry it seems like I want to have something both ways--to be fair, I think it of most paedos--but I'm simply treading the knife edge between errors on either hand. Speaking against one extreme does not mean I'm embracing the other.
The way circumcision was applied in the OT is different than how baptism is to be applied in the NT. I've explained this several times in many threads--I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer. You'll have to be content with disagreeing here.
As for FV, I don't know what it is enough to comment or care. But if you think I'm attached to it, I'm probably not. Straw men, what?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jason F.

greenbaggins said:


> As to strawman arguments, there is at least one to which ALL the paedos in this thread have responded to in _exactly the same way_ (the erroneous statement that paedos believe in salvation by genealogy).


Yet three posts previous...


Romans678 said:


> This is just me talking...but if you are with multiple children, faithful, and walking humbly near to Christ, one of them knucklehead babies better be praising the Lord! [emoji16] If not, and not one of your children know the Lord...that's a telling scenario of your own profession of faith.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> As for FV, I don't know what it is enough to comment or care. But if you think I'm attached to it, I'm probably not. Straw men, what?


Didn’t say you were.


----------



## Romans678

Jason F. said:


> Yet three posts previous...


Where are you getting at brother? What I said was pretty cut and dry. 

If you say you are a great cook and you have ten kids, and none of them can cook, you must not be doing a good job at teaching them how to cook. If you say you are a great singer, and you have a bunch of kids, one of those munchkins are going to be singing!

You cannot say you are a Christian, have children, and they end up know nothing of the Word, prayer, and the Gospel. There are no hidden Christians, brother. The light is shining and the salt is savory.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor

Jason F. said:


> Yet three posts previous...


Anthony is a Baptist.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jason F.

Romans678 said:


> Where are you getting at brother? What I said was pretty cut and dry.
> 
> If you say you are a great cook and you have ten kids, and none of them can cook, you must not be doing a good job at teaching them how to cook. If you say you are a great singer, and you have a bunch of kids, one of those munchkins are going to be singing!
> 
> You cannot say you are a Christian, have children, and they end up know nothing of the Word, prayer, and the Gospel. There are no hidden Christians, brother. The light is shining and the salt is savory.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Does salvation depend on regeneration, or your teaching? It's honestly hard to tell from these last 2 posts. Samuel comes to mind, as a righteous man with 2 evil sons. Do we question his faithfulness?


----------



## J.L. Allen

Jason F. said:


> Does salvation depend on regeneration, or your teaching? It's honestly hard to tell from these last 2 posts. Samuel comes to mind, as a righteous man with 2 evil sons. Do we question his faithfulness?


God is pleased to call to himself his people through means of family devotions and teaching. This is not the only way of doing so, but it is an undoubtedly demonstrable way in which the Lord has been pleased to work amongst his people.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor said:


> Anthony is a Baptist.



Have you read his posts? He appears to be a Baptist in name only at this point. He's arguing against all the Baptists and for all the Paedorhantists.


----------



## Jason F.

J.L. Allen said:


> God is pleased to call those to himself his people through means of family devotions and teaching. This is not the only way of doing so, but it is an undoubtedly demonstrable way in which the Lord has been pleased to work amongst his people.


I agree 100% with this statement. You won't find a confessional Baptist that wouldn't. But his statements seem to be taking it a step further than this, and I'm looking for clarification.


----------



## J.L. Allen

Without being omniscient, I think I can clearly see that he's talking about the Christian witness shining upon the children in your household (light cannot be hidden and salt is salty). If that is not happening, then you should deeply search your own heart to find that you are faithful to God and repent of the neglect towards those whom he has given. Perhaps I'm seeing this through a paedobaptist lens, though...


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Have you read his posts? He appears to be a Baptist in name only at this point. He's arguing against all the Baptists and for all the Paedorhantists.


Seems to me he is just trying to figure things out. Here is what he said: "I am not going to change my signature until I am fully convinced. That's why I'm asking these questions in this manner. This is probably the only place where you can ask difficult questions that get answered fairly quickly."

In any case, Lane said specifically that paedobaptists in this thread have said something uniformly. Anthony was used as a counter example, which I am just pointing out as illegitimate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

Anyone read Beeke’s book ‘Parenting By God’s Promises’?


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, as it turns out, I have seen and understand these arguments and reject them. Be wary of equating understanding an argument and accepting it. Paedos believe that salvation was unbreakable in the OT, and that the essence of the covenant of grace is salvation in OT times just as much as in NT times, and that it is the same salvation in Christ. Furthermore, there was an outward administration just as much in the NT as in the OT times. If you are a Calvinist, and I have every reason to believe you are, soteriologically, and the OT covenants of grace were breakable, then how could OT saints have an unbreakable salvation? What covenant was it part of? If OT covenants were all breakable, then there is no salvation by grace through faith in OT times, unless you believe salvation had no connection whatsoever to OT covenants, and that would be quite impossible to prove from Scripture. Salvation is ALWAYS covenantal in Scripture.
> 
> As to strawman arguments, there is at least one to which ALL the paedos in this thread have responded to in _exactly the same way_ (the erroneous statement that paedos believe in salvation by genealogy). Every last one of us who have mentioned strawman arguments have said it on this thread. Doesn't seem to have penetrated yet that this is a caricature. Instead, you are throwing up what appears to be a smokescreen of responding to many different individuals, as if we didn't agree that this one, at least, was a strawman all paedos agree is a strawman. The only people who might even come close to saying this are FV'ers, not confessional Presbyterians. Do you or do you not see that this is a caricature?
> 
> In Acts 2, those who were far off are the Gentiles. Speaking a number of things in one breath does not mean that they have to mean the same things. It does not control the meaning of the phrases. Those who were far off, as Peter says in 1 Peter, are those who were not God's people. The progression appears to be "you, those close to you, and those far off from you." Just because Peter added the last phrase doesn't mean they have to somehow be part of the covenant at that moment. And that, in turn, says nothing about whether the children were included in the new covenant. There is NO Scripture ANYWHERE in the NT that says children are not now part of the new covenant. Instead, they are called holy in 1 Corinthians 7. They are invited to come to Christ as infants, with Christ even saying that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (brephos, infants). Do pray tell me how they can have the kingdom of God, but should be restrained from having the sign of the kingdom?


I think I see your argument--well, I always saw it, but I disagree with it. I see salvation in the OT as being, as it is now, by union with Christ, not by any external administration of a covenant. And perhaps you agree so far. But I regard those OT covenants as shadows of the New Covenant, with rudiments that were abrogated when once the substance they were prefiguring came along. The old covenant had a membership--everyone born physically to covenant parents, and strangers who would take the sign and keep the laws. But not everyone was saved. The New Covenant has a better membership--everyone who has been born again. With new, better membership rules comes a better sign: not a grisly, visible cutting away of flesh, but a picture of dying to self and rising to walk in newness of life. So the automatic application of the sign to those simply born passed away with the end of that era, when the real deal arrived, and that picture was no longer needed.
I know we'll disagree about this forever, but that's fine.
As for genealogical salvation, I'm aware that consistent paedobaptists don't believe that, but I guess I've met many inconsistent paedobaptists, or at least many, even one upthread, who sound like they're pretty well into it. Perhaps it's all a misunderstanding, and perhaps that misunderstanding is due to the logical knots that paedos have to tie to get this whole "in but not of" covenant language you've maybe heard before. Perhaps it's simply that my feeble mind can't understand why they'd bring the OT shadows into the NT glory, but there it is.
I do appreciate your time in responding, and I hope that even if you reject the baptist view, you can see where it's coming from. We were, after all, simply trying to answer the OPs simple question.


----------



## Romans678

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Anyone read Beeke’s book ‘Parenting By God’s Promises’?


I have a copy. Haven't finished it yet. Great book, but I ended up jumping to Voddie Baucham's Fault Lines. I seem to have a "book-jumping" problem as of late. I will be returning to it soon. What are your thoughts on the book?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> I think I see your argument--well, I always saw it, but I disagree with it. I see salvation in the OT as being, as it is now, by union with Christ, not by any external administration of a covenant. And perhaps you agree so far. But I regard those OT covenants as shadows of the New Covenant, with rudiments that were abrogated when once the substance they were prefiguring came along. The old covenant had a membership--everyone born physically to covenant parents, and strangers who would take the sign and keep the laws. But not everyone was saved. The New Covenant has a better membership--everyone who has been born again. With new, better membership rules comes a better sign: not a grisly, visible cutting away of flesh, but a picture of dying to self and rising to walk in newness of life. So the automatic application of the sign to those simply born passed away with the end of that era, when the real deal arrived, and that picture was no longer needed.
> I know we'll disagree about this forever, but that's fine.
> As for genealogical salvation, I'm aware that consistent paedobaptists don't believe that, but I guess I've met many inconsistent paedobaptists, or at least many, even one upthread, who sound like they're pretty well into it. Perhaps it's all a misunderstanding, and perhaps that misunderstanding is due to the logical knots that paedos have to tie to get this whole "in but not of" covenant language you've maybe heard before. Perhaps it's simply that my feeble mind can't understand why they'd bring the OT shadows into the NT glory, but there it is.
> I do appreciate your time in responding, and I hope that even if you reject the baptist view, you can see where it's coming from. We were, after all, simply trying to answer the OPs simple question.



Good morning brother! Help me understand this if you will. If baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and the NC is strictly for those that are the elect and circumcised of the heart, how can man determine the heart of another when they can't see inside of it? Fruits can be deceiving, so wouldn't we be in error to baptize anyone without a clear view of their motives?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans678 said:


> Good morning brother! Help me understand this if you will. If baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and the NC is strictly for those that are the elect and circumcised of the heart, how can man determine the heart of another when they can't see inside of it? Fruits can be deceiving, so wouldn't we be in error to baptize anyone without a clear view of their motives?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



Bingo. That was the substance (no pun) of my question regarding how baptists view the administration of the New Covenant. If the Old Covenant could speak of an inward and outward sign, then that necessarily means they believed in a substance of the covenant and its administration.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Ben Zartman said:


> I think I see your argument--well, I always saw it, but I disagree with it. I see salvation in the OT as being, as it is now, by union with Christ, not by any external administration of a covenant. And perhaps you agree so far. But I regard those OT covenants as shadows of the New Covenant, with rudiments that were abrogated when once the substance they were prefiguring came along. The old covenant had a membership--everyone born physically to covenant parents, and strangers who would take the sign and keep the laws. But not everyone was saved. The New Covenant has a better membership--everyone who has been born again. With new, better membership rules comes a better sign: not a grisly, visible cutting away of flesh, but a picture of dying to self and rising to walk in newness of life.



No one disagrees with that.


Ben Zartman said:


> but I guess I've met many inconsistent paedobaptists, or at least many, even one upthread, who sound like they're pretty well into



Those are called Federal Visionists


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> But not everyone was saved.


This does not answer my question of you. Of course not everyone was saved in the OT times. But let's take Abraham for an example, since it is quite clear from Scripture that he is a saved individual. Was his salvation unbreakable or not? If it was unbreakable, then what covenant was it a part of? And how can that covenant of which it had to be a part be a breakable covenant while offering unbreakable salvation? In my mind, this is a completely unsolvable problem with the Baptist position. You denigrate the OT saints to the point where they don't really have salvation at all, because there can be no unbreakable covenant promises in the OT in your system. If there were unbreakable covenant promises in the OT, then there goes the completely typological nature of OT covenants. So, when Jesus says that Abraham saw His day (surely implying faith in Christ), that can't really be true. When Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was truly justified by faith alone, that can't really be true. And when Paul says in Galatians 3 that those who are of faith are the true children of Abraham, that can't really be true. Your system under-emphasizes the grace that OT saints had, and over-estimates the "more" of the new covenant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

greenbaggins said:


> This does not answer my question of you. Of course not everyone was saved in the OT times. But let's take Abraham for an example, since it is quite clear from Scripture that he is a saved individual. Was his salvation unbreakable or not? If it was unbreakable, then what covenant was it a part of? And how can that covenant of which it had to be a part be a breakable covenant while offering unbreakable salvation? In my mind, this is a completely unsolvable problem with the Baptist position. You denigrate the OT saints to the point where they don't really have salvation at all, because there can be no unbreakable covenant promises in the OT in your system. If there were unbreakable covenant promises in the OT, then there goes the completely typological nature of OT covenants. So, when Jesus says that Abraham saw His day (surely implying faith in Christ), that can't really be true. When Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was truly justified by faith alone, that can't really be true. And when Paul says in Galatians 3 that those who are of faith are the true children of Abraham, that can't really be true. Your system under-emphasizes the grace that OT saints had, and over-estimates the "more" of the new covenant.



1. It was unbreakable.
2. It was of the New Covenant.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I’d like to enter into the discussion with a few remarks. Ben, I must hand it to you, standing as you have against so many opponents, pretty much single-handedly! You have some grit! Perhaps this may shed some further light for you (and for you too Anthony @Romans678 , as you seek deeper understanding).

Ben, you have said, “I simply reject it [the paedobaptist view] as inconsistent with Scripture, as have thousands of Baptists before me. There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._” (Post #80) …. “the automatic application of the sign to those simply born passed away with the end of that era, when the real deal arrived, and that picture was no longer needed.” (Post #170)

A crucial question would be *why* was “the automatic application of the sign [given] to those simply born?”, for you are right that such was the case. The reason is this:

The elect seed, _almost_ always, were born in the line of generations of godly parents, although not all of the children born of these parents were elect, so _for the sake of the elect all of them were_ – in the OT – _circumcised_, and it is equivalent in the NT, all being baptized. You may object about the NT cases I just mentioned, but consider, yes, although in the NT church age multitudes of adults are converted through either evangelism of various sorts, or the Lord reaches others through various means (reading, etc), and many of these converted adults will marry, be part of churches, and all – whether credo or paedo – will so nurture their children as to have them believe in their God, God willing. A church without parents having godly children will likely soon die out after, or before, one generation.

It is thus clear that the faith is still carried along, excepting new converts brought to Christ, in the line of generations of godly parents. In the Reformed churches the newborn children are all baptized, even though we know that not all may be elect, but _for the sake of the elect all must be baptized_. The reprobate among them will eventually show their true colors, and either leave the church, or be disciplined out, or – if they can conceal their true hearts from men – will be discovered when the Lord returns.

You also said, Ben, regarding the paedobaptist view, “There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._”

I’d like to hear from you, in essence, what these alleged inconsistencies are, and what my alleged misunderstanding of the New Covenant is.

It is clear to us both, I believe, that the very crux of our difference concerns the nature of the Covenant of Grace (CoG), and of the New Covenant. You likely are familiar with the Reformed maxim that the CoG continues from the OT through to the NT, although upon the advent of Christ and the expansion of the church to include the Gentiles the administration of the one covenant changes so as to include non-Jews and women, thus circumcision is done away with as the covenant sign is replaced by the non-bloody sign and seal of water. It is still the same covenant. But women can now bear the sign without having to be under the authority of a father, husband, or elder brother – who may eject them from their family for faith in the Messiah. Now they are in Christ, and under His authority, their elder brother, and Lord.

As for the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant – where the CoG is brought into a distinct and exclusive family line – it is written of me (and of all of us who believe in Christ), “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The command to Abraham to put the sign of the Covenant on his male children has not been rescinded in the New Covenant, but expanded to include females, as the authority structure of families, and the assemblies of God’s people were changed and expanded. That command is still in force. Our children are to bear the sign of the covenant. The _promise_ is that God will be our God, and we shall be His people. 

The New Covenant is new in relation to what? It is the final administration of the CoG, and it is _new_ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant.

Little children – infants especially – cannot give a “credible profession” as they are not even verbal or capable of rational thought yet. But consider this: an infant of days or weeks still knows who his mother is, can distinguish her presence from other women; the child _knows_ his or her mother; likewise an infant can know the presence of his or her God. Surely John the Baptist knew he was in the presence of his Lord and God when Mary came into the house of Elizabeth, even though both were still in the womb (Luke 1:41,42,43,44). Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psa 139:13), among others, knew the presence of their God before their births. Whenever the Lord chooses to bring His elect child into His presence, He will do it, regardless of age – but do it He will, and we baptize such by His command, with the outward sign of the inward reality, wherever He will effect that.

Rev. Lane has already made the excellent distinction between the administration and the essence of the covenant, and I but use different words and concepts to say much the same.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> Good morning brother! Help me understand this if you will. If baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and the NC is strictly for those that are the elect and circumcised of the heart, how can man determine the heart of another when they can't see inside of it? Fruits can be deceiving, so wouldn't we be in error to baptize anyone without a clear view of their motives?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I don't want to speak for Ben as I don't know what his response would be, but my response is that I can help you understand that "dilemma" if you can help me understand how any fallible pastor, baptist or paedobapist, can administer the Lord's Supper without fear of being in error? I've seen it posited in other threads by staunch paedobaptists that it is a requirement for the baptist position to have Judgment Day knowledge about whether or not a person is elect before baptizing them (my paraphrase, but I think it's a fair reflection of the comments). I have _not_ seen it articulated how that logically follows from the reformed baptist position, or if the attempt was made, there were assumptions made in the process through the paedobaptist lens. So, let me respond through the baptist lens.

Both sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are to be administered by ministers of the gospel as a seal of the covenant (refer to WLC support, below). For the baptist, both being baptized as a hypocrite (reprobate) and unworthily partaking of the Lord's Supper brings judgment upon oneself. It does not bring judgment upon the faithful minister who administers the sacraments nor does it necessitate "seeing inside the heart of another" prior to administration of the same. Additionally, while it's debatable whether or not Judas partook in the inaugural Lord's Supper, some paedobaptists believe he did, which further negates the weight of your question falling singularly on the baptist. Refer to this recent thread for some examples, in particular posts #4, #6, and #16.
EDIT: I'm not sure how to insert a direct link to a PB thread so please copy and paste the following URL: puritanboard.com/threads/luke-22-19-21-and-limited-atonement-did-Jesus-die-for-judas.107741/

By the way, I am sorry if it has already been asked, but have you been consistently seeking your pastor's counsel as you wrestle through this matter? If not, I would strongly encourage and urge you to do so. It's a blessing to be able to get the thoughts and opinions of brethren from around the world, but none of us are accountable to God for your soul.

_Westminster Larger Catechism_
Q.176: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree?
A: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; *both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other*; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Good morning brother! Help me understand this if you will. If baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and the NC is strictly for those that are the elect and circumcised of the heart, how can man determine the heart of another when they can't see inside of it? Fruits can be deceiving, so wouldn't we be in error to baptize anyone without a clear view of their motives?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


We don't need to. I've mentioned that Peter excommunicated Simon the Magician, who had been baptized and joined the church. Since baptism is the subject publicly testifying that he/she is converted and therefore publicly joining himself to the church, we don't need to--nor can we--infallibly know their hearts.
If we had to, we could never baptize anyone. But that doesn't mean we go against the rule of Scripture and baptize people who can't give "the answer of a good confession." We baptize upon that, believing the God knows the heart.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> This does not answer my question of you. Of course not everyone was saved in the OT times. But let's take Abraham for an example, since it is quite clear from Scripture that he is a saved individual. Was his salvation unbreakable or not? If it was unbreakable, then what covenant was it a part of? And how can that covenant of which it had to be a part be a breakable covenant while offering unbreakable salvation? In my mind, this is a completely unsolvable problem with the Baptist position. You denigrate the OT saints to the point where they don't really have salvation at all, because there can be no unbreakable covenant promises in the OT in your system. If there were unbreakable covenant promises in the OT, then there goes the completely typological nature of OT covenants. So, when Jesus says that Abraham saw His day (surely implying faith in Christ), that can't really be true. When Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was truly justified by faith alone, that can't really be true. And when Paul says in Galatians 3 that those who are of faith are the true children of Abraham, that can't really be true. Your system under-emphasizes the grace that OT saints had, and over-estimates the "more" of the new covenant.


Abraham's salvation was part of the "covenant of redemption," if we may call it that, that God made with Christ in eternity past, to give Him a people. The Abrahamic covenant, like the others after it, was therefore painting a picture. There was an external administration that typified an internal reality. The things from which the pictures were made had no power to save: they were simply illustrating the upcoming culmination of Christ's work, where He would keep the law we broke; where He would shed His blood for the remission of sins of all the elect in all times. To say we denigrate OT saints to the point where they don't have salvation at all is to use the straw man argument you claim to abhor.
Abraham saw Jesus' day--he saw that it was Jesus who would take away the sins of His people, and rejoiced, because he understood that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, any more than being merely circumcised in the flesh could. The external administration of the covenant, where one could break it by apostatizing (and the unregenerate could and did fall away often), was a framework, looking forward to a time when the visible administration would be more exclusive, because only professing, credible believers were in it, but more inclusive, because it has gone out to the entire world.
The OT saints had the same saving grace that we do, and Abraham was justified by faith alone, as well as anyone who was regenerate in the OT. But we must not fetch the sign of a fallible external administration into the times of a better covenant, which not only has changed the sign, but the way it is to be administered.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I don't want to speak for Ben as I don't know what his response would be, but my response is that I can help you understand that "dilemma" if you can help me understand how any fallible pastor, baptist or paedobapist, can administer the Lord's Supper without fear of being in error? I've seen it posited in other threads by staunch paedobaptists that it is a requirement for the baptist position to have Judgment Day knowledge about whether or not a person is elect before baptizing them (my paraphrase, but I think it's a fair reflection of the comments). I have _not_ seen it articulated how that logically follows from the reformed baptist position, or if the attempt was made, there were assumptions made in the process through the paedobaptist lens. So, let me respond through the baptist lens.
> 
> Both sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are to be administered by ministers of the gospel as a seal of the covenant (refer to WLC support, below). For the baptist, both being baptized as a hypocrite (reprobate) and unworthily partaking of the Lord's Supper brings judgment upon oneself. It does not bring judgment upon the faithful minister who administers the sacraments nor does it necessitate "seeing inside the heart of another" prior to administration of the same. Additionally, while it's debatable whether or not Judas partook in the inaugural Lord's Supper, some paedobaptists believe he did, which further negates the weight of your question falling singularly on the baptist. Refer to this recent thread for some examples, in particular posts #4, #6, and #16.
> EDIT: I'm not sure how to insert a direct link to a PB thread so please copy and paste the following URL: puritanboard.com/threads/luke-22-19-21-and-limited-atonement-did-Jesus-die-for-judas.107741/
> 
> By the way, I am sorry if it has already been asked, but have you been consistently seeking your pastor's counsel as you wrestle through this matter? If not, I would strongly encourage and urge you to do so. It's a blessing to be able to get the thoughts and opinions of brethren from around the world, but none of us are accountable to God for your soul.
> 
> _Westminster Larger Catechism_
> Q.176: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree?
> A: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; *both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other*; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.



Thank you for your reply and amen. Consistent seeking my pastors counsel is the best thing to do. I have brought it up and talked about it with my pastor and my brothers. I love them dearly. I enjoy theological discussions immensely so I frequent The Board quite often. Not to start arguments or be contentious or anything. To read the responses of well learned brothers and sisters young and old all across the globe is admittedly a delight for me. That's one of the main reason's why I keep coming back! [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’d like to enter into the discussion with a few remarks. Ben, I must hand it to you, standing as you have against so many opponents, pretty much single-handedly! You have some grit! Perhaps this may shed some further light for you (and for you too Anthony @Romans678 , as you seek deeper understanding).
> 
> Ben, you have said, “I simply reject it [the paedobaptist view] as inconsistent with Scripture, as have thousands of Baptists before me. There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._” (Post #80) …. “the automatic application of the sign to those simply born passed away with the end of that era, when the real deal arrived, and that picture was no longer needed.” (Post #170)
> 
> A crucial question would be *why* was “the automatic application of the sign [given] to those simply born?”, for you are right that such was the case. The reason is this:
> 
> The elect seed, _almost_ always, were born in the line of generations of godly parents, although not all of the children born of these parents were elect, so _for the sake of the elect all of them were_ – in the OT – _circumcised_, and it is equivalent in the NT, all being baptized. You may object about the NT cases I just mentioned, but consider, yes, although in the NT church age multitudes of adults are converted through either evangelism of various sorts, or the Lord reaches others through various means (reading, etc), and many of these converted adults will marry, be part of churches, and all – whether credo or paedo – will so nurture their children as to have them believe in their God, God willing. A church without parents having godly children will likely soon die out after, or before, one generation.
> 
> It is thus clear that the faith is still carried along, excepting new converts brought to Christ, in the line of generations of godly parents. In the Reformed churches the newborn children are all baptized, even though we know that not all may be elect, but _for the sake of the elect all must be baptized_. The reprobate among them will eventually show their true colors, and either leave the church, or be disciplined out, or – if they can conceal their true hearts from men – will be discovered when the Lord returns.
> 
> You also said, Ben, regarding the paedobaptist view, “There are logical inconsistencies in it, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Covenant _is._”
> 
> I’d like to hear from you, in essence, what these alleged inconsistencies are, and what my alleged misunderstanding of the New Covenant is.
> 
> It is clear to us both, I believe, that the very crux of our difference concerns the nature of the Covenant of Grace (CoG), and of the New Covenant. You likely are familiar with the Reformed maxim that the CoG continues from the OT through to the NT, although upon the advent of Christ and the expansion of the church to include the Gentiles the administration of the one covenant changes so as to include non-Jews and women, thus circumcision is done away with as the covenant sign is replaced by the non-bloody sign and seal of water. It is still the same covenant. But women can now bear the sign without having to be under the authority of a father, husband, or elder brother – who may eject them from their family for faith in the Messiah. Now they are in Christ, and under His authority, their elder brother, and Lord.
> 
> As for the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant – where the CoG is brought into a distinct and exclusive family line – it is written of me (and of all of us who believe in Christ), “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The command to Abraham to put the sign of the Covenant on his male children has not been rescinded in the New Covenant, but expanded to include females, as the authority structure of families, and the assemblies of God’s people were changed and expanded. That command is still in force. Our children are to bear the sign of the covenant. The _promise_ is that God will be our God, and we shall be His people.
> 
> The New Covenant is new in relation to what? It is the final administration of the CoG, and it is _new_ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> Little children – infants especially – cannot give a “credible profession” as they are not even verbal or capable of rational thought yet. But consider this: an infant of days or weeks still knows who his mother is, can distinguish her presence from other women; the child _knows_ his or her mother; likewise an infant can know the presence of his or her God. Surely John the Baptist knew he was in the presence of his Lord and God when Mary came into the house of Elizabeth, even though both were still in the womb (Luke 1:41,42,43,44). Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psa 139:13), among others, knew the presence of their God before their births. Whenever the Lord chooses to bring His elect child into His presence, He will do it, regardless of age – but do it He will, and we baptize such by His command, with the outward sign of the inward reality, wherever He will effect that.
> 
> Rev. Lane has already made the excellent distinction between the administration and the essence of the covenant, and I but use different words and concepts to say much the same.


Steve, thanks for the detailed post. As you've guessed, I disagree with most of the conclusions. But you wish me to point out the inconsistencies--which word, by the way, was applied early on in this thread to Baptists. So, we're simply turning the accusation right back.

The principal inconsistency is seen in the snippet of Dort that Isaac cited earlier, where believers are told not to doubt that their unborn and infant dead are elect. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it seems to say that as long as a child dies in the womb or dies before......whenever infancy can be said to end, they are to be presumed elect. But Rev. Lane has been very clear that we cannot presume on the salvation of children. Which is it? Are they most surely elect as long as they die before X age? And then after that can they fall away and not be elect, after all? Does God guarantee that all unborn infants of saved parents are saved? Where does He do this? He does not, therefore this is a monstrous inconsistency.
The LBCF does not so presume, but simply states that being unborn is no hindrance to God's grace. So every unborn and infant, so long as he is elect--and that is unknowable--are surely saved and taken to glory on their decease. To know that God is sovereign over salvation is enough for us who believe in His goodness without presuming things are are not vouchsafed.

You speak of Abraham as though we did not know ourselves to be heirs with him, which we affirm that we are, according to Scripture. But heirs of what? Of the promise of a spiritual progeny innumerable. If we return to the shadow of covenant inclusion by physical generation, we miss the whole point of what it truly means to be "sons of Abraham." There is no more physical, generational component--that passed away when the substance came--there is only the component of the New Birth. Read the earlier posts, I beg you, and count how many times I've repeated that. In that way Paedobaptists misunderstand what the new covenant is.

As for the faith being carried along by families, I don't deny that God uses that as one means to propagate the church, but those children must still claim the promises for themselves; must still hear the Gospel and lay hold on Christ; are still born in Adam and need to be born again, just like every other person on earth who hears the gospel, and God's promises to him are yea and amen just as much as to children of believers.

I think a lot of this confusion stems from two different views of what baptism does, and of what it is. Paedobaptists are more sacramental, as though the signs conferred something to the subject. Baptists see them more as ordinances of the church, not something that God does, but something that we do in obedience to God. So baptism is something the subject does--he gets baptized--to publicly proclaim his conversion and commitment to the church. For paedobaptists, it is seen as something God does, to seal to them a promise that is already sure. Why bother telling someone: God guarantees your salvation upon repentance and faith, and by the way, He EXTRA guarantees it because you were baptized before you knew what was going on? If I had reason to believe that baptizing my children could give them some sort of leg up toward salvation, as though Go's promises weren't sure enough already, I'd have dunked them ages ago. But baptism does not give anyone anything (in Baptist theology), it is simply their public confession that they have been saved.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Steve, thanks for the detailed post. As you've guessed, I disagree with most of the conclusions. But you wish me to point out the inconsistencies--which word, by the way, was applied early on in this thread to Baptists. So, we're simply turning the accusation right back.
> 
> The principal inconsistency is seen in the snippet of Dort that Isaac cited earlier, where believers are told not to doubt that their unborn and infant dead are elect. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it seems to say that as long as a child dies in the womb or dies before......whenever infancy can be said to end, they are to be presumed elect. But Rev. Lane has been very clear that we cannot presume on the salvation of children. Which is it? Are they most surely elect as long as they die before X age? And then after that can they fall away and not be elect, after all? Does God guarantee that all unborn infants of saved parents are saved? Where does He do this? He does not, therefore this is a monstrous inconsistency.
> The LBCF does not so presume, but simply states that being unborn is no hindrance to God's grace. So every unborn and infant, so long as he is elect--and that is unknowable--are surely saved and taken to glory on their decease. To know that God is sovereign over salvation is enough for us who believe in His goodness without presuming things are are not vouchsafed.
> 
> You speak of Abraham as though we did not know ourselves to be heirs with him, which we affirm that we are, according to Scripture. But heirs of what? Of the promise of a spiritual progeny innumerable. If we return to the shadow of covenant inclusion by physical generation, we miss the whole point of what it truly means to be "sons of Abraham." There is no more physical, generational component--that passed away when the substance came--there is only the component of the New Birth. Read the earlier posts, I beg you, and count how many times I've repeated that. In that way Paedobaptists misunderstand what the new covenant is.
> 
> As for the faith being carried along by families, I don't deny that God uses that as one means to propagate the church, but those children must still claim the promises for themselves; must still hear the Gospel and lay hold on Christ; are still born in Adam and need to be born again, just like every other person on earth who hears the gospel, and God's promises to him are yea and amen just as much as to children of believers.
> 
> I think a lot of this confusion stems from two different views of what baptism does, and of what it is. Paedobaptists are more sacramental, as though the signs conferred something to the subject. Baptists see them more as ordinances of the church, not something that God does, but something that we do in obedience to God. So baptism is something the subject does--he gets baptized--to publicly proclaim his conversion and commitment to the church. For paedobaptists, it is seen as something God does, to seal to them a promise that is already sure. Why bother telling someone: God guarantees your salvation upon repentance and faith, and by the way, He EXTRA guarantees it because you were baptized before you knew what was going on? If I had reason to believe that baptizing my children could give them some sort of leg up toward salvation, as though Go's promises weren't sure enough already, I'd have dunked them ages ago. But baptism does not give anyone anything (in Baptist theology), it is simply their public confession that they have been saved.



Ben, you have been an awesome expositor of Baptist theology. I appreciate your efforts and clarity on the position. I've learned a lot, no doubt. 

If baptism doesn't do anything, then why baptize in the first place? What's the point? If it is just a mere empty ritual (by no means am I accusing you of saying this btw [emoji846]), then why NOT give it to our babies? It's just water...

I think I get it now. Please do not take this as a definitive attack or slander. I am learning. Please forgive me if I offend. 

In the realm of sacraments, we Baptists have taken Credible Confession and put it in place of baptism. Even though we literally call ourselves the ordinance by name (Baptists) we treat the act of baptism secondary to the Confession itself. In other words (respectfully of course) the waters don't really mean anything to us, unlike The Lord's Supper in which we do hold great meaning in it's application, but it the words out of our mouth that stand alongside the Supper...

It appears to me that in "word" we say the sacraments/ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper, but in practice it's Credible Confession and the Lord's Supper that we proclaim. Am I missing the mark? And please, treat my words as inquisitiveness not and attack. My heart I beg of you is not looking to fight, but to learn. Please be patient with me in this.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> 1. It was unbreakable.
> 2. It was of the New Covenant.


Interesting. This does not appear to be the same position as Ben. So, in your position, if the New Covenant extends back into the Old Testament, then why has the position of children become worse in the New Testament than the Old? 




Ben Zartman said:


> Abraham's salvation was part of the "covenant of redemption," if we may call it that, that God made with Christ in eternity past, to give Him a people. The Abrahamic covenant, like the others after it, was therefore painting a picture. There was an external administration that typified an internal reality. The things from which the pictures were made had no power to save: they were simply illustrating the upcoming culmination of Christ's work, where He would keep the law we broke; where He would shed His blood for the remission of sins of all the elect in all times. To say we denigrate OT saints to the point where they don't have salvation at all is to use the straw man argument you claim to abhor.
> Abraham saw Jesus' day--he saw that it was Jesus who would take away the sins of His people, and rejoiced, because he understood that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, any more than being merely circumcised in the flesh could. The external administration of the covenant, where one could break it by apostatizing (and the unregenerate could and did fall away often), was a framework, looking forward to a time when the visible administration would be more exclusive, because only professing, credible believers were in it, but more inclusive, because it has gone out to the entire world.
> The OT saints had the same saving grace that we do, and Abraham was justified by faith alone, as well as anyone who was regenerate in the OT. But we must not fetch the sign of a fallible external administration into the times of a better covenant, which not only has changed the sign, but the way it is to be administered.


You appear to be saying, in your first paragraph, that Abraham's sins weren't really forgiven until Christ made atonement, that they were only typologically forgiven. Then in the last paragraph you say he was fully justified. You say in your first paragraph that "The things from which the pictures were made had no power to save." Is this talking about how OT saints were saved, or are you talking about the administration only? You have still not explained how it is that a breakable covenant produces an unbreakable justification by faith. Your position is incoherent from where I stand. You are the one tying yourself in knots about how to explain the OT covenants. I am leaving behind (for a moment) the question of the sign, and talking about the substance of the OT covenant, salvation in the OT economy. What was the substance of the OT covenants? Was it salvation? If it was, then it is not breakable. It can't be. If it is breakable, then it is not real salvation at all. You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, here. Paul said Abraham was justified by faith alone. He wasn't justified when Christ came. He was justified before he was circumcised. That is the moment when he passed from wrath to grace. It was in Abraham's lifetime, not in eternity past, like the covenant of redemption would say. The covenant of redemption is an intra-Trinitarian covenant NOT made with humans. The historical covenants are outworkings of the _pactum salutis_, but are not the _pactum salutis_ itself. The paedo position is so much simpler, actually. All the covenants from Genesis 3:16 on are iterations of the one singular covenant of grace, which all have an outward administration, and an inner substance. They all work the same way when it comes to salvation. They build on top of each other, and while some things fall away (like circumcision and Passover), the substance and structure of the covenants remain the same. There is both continuity and discontinuity among the various iterations, true, but the substance is always the same. 


Ben Zartman said:


> The principal inconsistency is seen in the snippet of Dort that Isaac cited earlier, where believers are told not to doubt that their unborn and infant dead are elect. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it seems to say that as long as a child dies in the womb or dies before......whenever infancy can be said to end, they are to be presumed elect. But Rev. Lane has been very clear that we cannot presume on the salvation of children. Which is it? Are they most surely elect as long as they die before X age? And then after that can they fall away and not be elect, after all? Does God guarantee that all unborn infants of saved parents are saved? Where does He do this? He does not, therefore this is a monstrous inconsistency.
> The LBCF does not so presume, but simply states that being unborn is no hindrance to God's grace. So every unborn and infant, so long as he is elect--and that is unknowable--are surely saved and taken to glory on their decease. To know that God is sovereign over salvation is enough for us who believe in His goodness without presuming things are are not vouchsafed.


 
There is quite a difference between infants who die in infancy (and therefore, we have only the covenantal promises to guide us as to the destiny of where they end up). David knew that he was going to go to his infant son who died. He believed in the covenantal promises. For children who are born and grow up, the case is different, since God's plan for them is not for them to die in infancy, but to grow up. Hence, we don't assume they are regenerated. This is not inconsistent at all, let alone "monstrous," as your overstated rhetoric would claim.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

greenbaggins said:


> Interesting. This does not appear to be the same position as Ben.



I hold to what is nowadays called "1689 Federalism". If I understand Ben rightly, he does not, so naturally there would be some differences between us.



greenbaggins said:


> So, in your position, if the New Covenant extends back into the Old Testament, then why has the position of children become worse in the New Testament than the Old?



Who says the "position of children becomes worse" in the New Testament?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I hold to what is nowadays called "1689 Federalism". If I understand Ben rightly, he does not, so naturally there would be some differences between us.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says the "position of children becomes worse" in the New Testament?



He means it becomes worse because on that argument children are no longer in the covenant, no longer have the covenant signed and sealed on them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D.

RamistThomist said:


> He means it becomes worse because on that argument children are no longer in the covenant, no longer have the covenant signed and sealed on them.


Actually, that only pertained to male infants... and, of course adult women, were excluded as well.

I've wondered if this indeed greater inclusion in a covenantal sign in the NT is what Luke had in mind in Acts 8:12 cf. Acts 5:14.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

RamistThomist said:


> He means it becomes worse because on that argument children are _*no longer*_ in *the covenant*, no longer have the covenant signed and sealed on them.



Well of course not. "The covenant" (that is, the covenant of circumcision) no longer exists. No one (of any age) is in it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well of course not. "The covenant" (that is, the covenant of circumcision) no longer exists. No one (of any age) is in it.



The covenant God made with Abraham still exists. The covenant he made with Moses does not.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ben, thanks for responding! I would not term it an _inconsistency_ that the Westminster Standards have a different view than Dort on children dying in infancy, just a difference between the Presbyterian and the Reformed understanding.

You said, "There is no more physical, generational component--that passed away when the substance came--there is only the component of the New Birth." A child being born into a godly family surely must be a "physical, generational component" in their _possible_ (not certain) election! For the providence of God placed them in an environment where is the nurture and admonition _and indeed the very presence_ of God!

*A godly family is a physical, generational entity and a spiritual entity*.

You used the term, "covenant inclusion by physical generation", and you called it "a shadow" (i.e., devoid of "substance"). But when the LORD spoke through Moses saying, "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" (Deut 30:6), this was pure _salvific substance_ of the Covenant of Grace, equal to _our_ status in the New Covenant.

You said, "Paedobaptists are more sacramental, as though the signs conferred something to the subject." As regards an unelect infant, the sign confers nothing salvific. As regards the elect infant, the sign of itself confers nothing salvific, it is God that confers the salvific blessing, of which the mere outward sign is a covenantal seal and statement, "This is My child." The Lord, not the sign, did the conferring. We administered the sign in obedience, as children (seed) of Abraham. The unelect child was passed by by Him.

Baptizing your children in infancy wouldn't have given them an advantage as regards their election. The LORD determined what would be in that regard in eternity past. What God does is the inward reality of regeneration, when He pleases. It is also called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We do the outward baptizing because of the command.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Might I ask a related, yet slightly different question to the paedobaptist brethren responding in this thread?


Aspiring Homesteader said:


> When comparing the different ways that children are viewed/considered within the paedobaptist and credobaptist systems, could you share how this affects things in day to day practice? Is there a substantive difference?


Instead of the way that children are viewed/considered by parents, how does it practically unfold (in your household or in ones you are aware of) that these "covenant children" practically view _themselves_ and/or their siblings.

I'll give an anecdotal example of what I mean. Some time ago I spoke with a young man who was part of a solid church that subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. He's the son of the pastor, and in casual conversation shared with me how he and a number of his siblings (high school/college age) were believers. I expressed my excitement at that reality, yet his response was somewhat.. "ho hum" might be overstating it, but the impression I got was that it was just something that was almost assumed would happen and not a great cause for excitement or rejoicing. I don't doubt there was real faith and a love for God there, but it was just a bit disconcerting.

Since then, I've periodically thought how far from Luke 15 that response seemed. Maybe I place too much weight on just one encounter. Anyway, just curious to get others' thoughts since I know I'm thinking about it through the baptist lens. I imagine in any given church there are enough sprinkled children who have proved not to have the "essence" of the covenant that no one takes it entirely for granted, but is this a tendency or danger with this position in terms of the younger generation?


----------



## Tom Hart

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I'll give an anecdotal example of what I mean. Some time ago I spoke with a young man who was part of a solid church that subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. He's the son of the pastor, and in casual conversation shared with me how he and a number of his siblings (high school/college age) were believers. I expressed my excitement at that reality, yet his response was somewhat.. "ho hum" might be overstating it, but the impression I got was that it was just something that was almost assumed would happen and not a great cause for excitement or rejoicing. I don't doubt there was real faith and a love for God there, but it was just a bit disconcerting.


There are plenty of people who, like me, don’t express emotion the same way that some others might expect. Some might think we are emotionless, yet that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I am glad that my brother is a believer (my other siblings are not), and while I do sincerely rejoice over that - it came as an answer to years of prayer - I think I am not likely to convey that joy in a conversation. That’s just not how I roll.

I wouldn’t make too much of your anecdote.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Instead of the way that children are viewed/considered by parents, how does it practically unfold (in your household or in ones you are aware of) that these "covenant children" practically view _themselves_ and/or their siblings.


Former baptist here. Basically our aim is to raise children that can say they never knew a time they were not trusting in Christ.

Further, in Baptist circles, there is often an unbiblical pressure that everyone must have a drastic regeneration experience as Paul on the road to dasmacus, and if you didn’t then maybe it is time to be truly baptized once again…. and possibly again (since we are being anecdotal). For Baptist, the view of baptism requires that you know the moment of your TRUE expression of faith, otherwise the baptism is invalid.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

Smeagol said:


> Further, in Baptist circles, there is often an unbiblical pressure that everyone must have a drastic regeneration experience as Paul on the road to dasmacus, and if you didn’t then maybe it is time to be truly baptized on e again…. and possibly again. For Baptist, the view of baptism requires that you know the moment of your TRUE expression of faith, otherwise the baptism is invalid.



I came from a Charismatic Pentecostal background and have seen my fair share of what I would call gnosticism in that realm. In other words, it is very common to search for validation internally vs. trusting an external promise from an eternal God.

Witnessing myriads and myriads of people trusting their expressive internal "experiences" and falling away after a few short years does something to you.

I pray for my family who are stuck in that movement every chance I get. If God is merciful enough to save a wicked man like me, then surely He can bring them out of that delusion. I don't know if this relates to what you are saying or not, but I just thought I'd share it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Miss Marple

Romans678 said:


> "Children of the faithful" sounds about right to me.
> 
> This is just me talking...but if you are with multiple children, faithful, and walking humbly near to Christ, one of them knucklehead babies better be praising the Lord! [emoji16] If not, and not one of your children know the Lord...that's a telling scenario of your own profession of faith. Know what I mean?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


David presumed the salvation of his dead son.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Miss Marple said:


> David presumed the salvation of his dead son.


Amen. Presumption is believing in something God never promised. Faith is believing in the promises of God. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Miss Marple

Romans678 said:


> Amen. Presumption is believing in something God never promised. Faith is believing in the promises of God.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Ok. In that case, he believed the promise that God would save covenant children?


----------



## Romans678

Miss Marple said:


> Ok. In that case, he believed the promise that God would save covenant children?


Yes. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Miss Marple said:


> Ok. In that case, he believed the promise that God would save covenant children?


*Yes. And so should we.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> thaty


thaty vers*e*s that

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Ben, you have been an awesome expositor of Baptist theology. I appreciate your efforts and clarity on the position. I've learned a lot, no doubt.
> 
> If baptism doesn't do anything, then why baptize in the first place? What's the point? If it is just a mere empty ritual (by no means am I accusing you of saying this btw [emoji846]), then why NOT give it to our babies? It's just water...
> 
> I think I get it now. Please do not take this as a definitive attack or slander. I am learning. Please forgive me if I offend.
> 
> In the realm of sacraments, we Baptists have taken Credible Confession and put it in place of baptism. Even though we literally call ourselves the ordinance by name (Baptists) we treat the act of baptism secondary to the Confession itself. In other words (respectfully of course) the waters don't really mean anything to us, unlike The Lord's Supper in which we do hold great meaning in it's application, but it the words out of our mouth that stand alongside the Supper...
> 
> It appears to me that in "word" we say the sacraments/ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper, but in practice it's Credible Confession and the Lord's Supper that we proclaim. Am I missing the mark? And please, treat my words as inquisitiveness not and attack. My heart I beg of you is not looking to fight, but to learn. Please be patient with me in this.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


We baptize because Jesus commanded it. It is a visible declaration that we make that we have been forgiven and born again. It has great meaning because every person who witnessed my baptism (at which I was present as well), can testify: this man made a public profession; he claims to be a Christian, and has been formally received into the Church. There is much of both benefit and responsibility to church membership, and it should neither be despised nor entered flippantly. We maintain a credible profession our whole lives, or risk discipline, but Baptism is ceremony of entry into that.


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> We baptize because Jesus commanded it. It is a visible declaration that we make that we have been forgiven and born again. It has great meaning because every person who witnessed my baptism (at which I was present as well), can testify: this man made a public profession; he claims to be a Christian, and has been formally received into the Church. There is much of both benefit and responsibility to church membership, and it should neither be despised nor entered flippantly. We maintain a credible profession our whole lives, or risk discipline, but Baptism is ceremony of entry into that.


There’s a major difference. The reformed Presbyterian would say we baptize because Jesus commanded it because it is God’s declaration and claim upon this person, they are set apart from the world by this visible sign and seal, and if they truly believe the promises communicated in the visible sign, they will receive those promises.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Interesting. This does not appear to be the same position as Ben. So, in your position, if the New Covenant extends back into the Old Testament, then why has the position of children become worse in the New Testament than the Old?
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be saying, in your first paragraph, that Abraham's sins weren't really forgiven until Christ made atonement, that they were only typologically forgiven. Then in the last paragraph you say he was fully justified. You say in your first paragraph that "The things from which the pictures were made had no power to save." Is this talking about how OT saints were saved, or are you talking about the administration only? You have still not explained how it is that a breakable covenant produces an unbreakable justification by faith. Your position is incoherent from where I stand. You are the one tying yourself in knots about how to explain the OT covenants. I am leaving behind (for a moment) the question of the sign, and talking about the substance of the OT covenant, salvation in the OT economy. What was the substance of the OT covenants? Was it salvation? If it was, then it is not breakable. It can't be. If it is breakable, then it is not real salvation at all. You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, here. Paul said Abraham was justified by faith alone. He wasn't justified when Christ came. He was justified before he was circumcised. That is the moment when he passed from wrath to grace. It was in Abraham's lifetime, not in eternity past, like the covenant of redemption would say. The covenant of redemption is an intra-Trinitarian covenant NOT made with humans. The historical covenants are outworkings of the _pactum salutis_, but are not the _pactum salutis_ itself. The paedo position is so much simpler, actually. All the covenants from Genesis 3:16 on are iterations of the one singular covenant of grace, which all have an outward administration, and an inner substance. They all work the same way when it comes to salvation. They build on top of each other, and while some things fall away (like circumcision and Passover), the substance and structure of the covenants remain the same. There is both continuity and discontinuity among the various iterations, true, but the substance is always the same.
> 
> 
> There is quite a difference between infants who die in infancy (and therefore, we have only the covenantal promises to guide us as to the destiny of where they end up). David knew that he was going to go to his infant son who died. He believed in the covenantal promises. For children who are born and grow up, the case is different, since God's plan for them is not for them to die in infancy, but to grow up. Hence, we don't assume they are regenerated. This is not inconsistent at all, let alone "monstrous," as your overstated rhetoric would claim.


I am not at all saying that Abraham's sins weren't forgiven until Christ--I think perhaps the "1689 Federalists" would say that, but I'm somewhat at odds with them as well .
Perhaps it is impossible for me to explain, but Abraham was saved believing in the coming Messiah, and God imputed to him righteousness. Who's? Christ's, even though Christ hadn't come yet. It's a mystery perhaps, but I believe that OT saints were saved by the blood of Christ, even though it had not yet been shed in time. I am at a loss to further explain how. They were not saved, though, by being circumcised, though that was part of obedience: they were saved by grace through faith, faith in the promises that were expressed covenantally. Those covenant promises were fulfilled in Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, who changed the rules, not by upending everything, but by fulfilling all the promises, and fulfilling what the pictures stood for. And so I believe the structure changes, to use your words. Circumcision was a picture of something better. That better thing is here. I DO have my cake, and I AM eating it, and it's good!

But please clarify: do you believe that every child of a believing parent who dies in infancy is elect?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> There’s a major difference. The reformed Presbyterian would say we baptize because Jesus commanded it because it is God’s declaration and claim upon this person, they are set apart from the world by this visible sign and seal, and if they truly believe the promises communicated in the visible sign, they will receive those promises.


Sure, and there's the difference between us: Baptists believe that baptism is not a declaration and claim of God, but is a visible testimony given by the subject of his profession.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Smeagol said:


> Former baptist here. Basically our aim is to raise children that can say they never knew a time they were not trusting in Christ.
> 
> Further, in Baptist circles, there is often an unbiblical pressure that everyone must have a drastic regeneration experience as Paul on the road to dasmacus, and if you didn’t then maybe it is time to be truly baptized once again…. and possibly again (since we are being anecdotal). For Baptist, the view of baptism requires that you know the moment of your TRUE expression of faith, otherwise the baptism is invalid.


It is, sadly, the case in some Baptist circles. But not all, I'm happy to say: conversion experience is not required nor sought for in my circles, but the answer of a good confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ben, thanks for responding! I would not term it an _inconsistency_ that the Westminster Standards have a different view than Dort on children dying in infancy, just a difference between the Presbyterian and the Reformed understanding.
> 
> You said, "There is no more physical, generational component--that passed away when the substance came--there is only the component of the New Birth." A child being born into a godly family surely must be a "physical, generational component" in their _possible_ (not certain) election! For the providence of God placed them in an environment where is the nurture and admonition _and indeed the very presence_ of God!
> 
> *A godly family is a physical, generational entity and a spiritual entity*.
> 
> You used the term, "covenant inclusion by physical generation", and you called it "a shadow" (i.e., devoid of "substance"). But when the LORD spoke through Moses saying, "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" (Deut 30:6), this was pure _salvific substance_ of the Covenant of Grace, equal to _our_ status in the New Covenant.
> 
> You said, "Paedobaptists are more sacramental, as though the signs conferred something to the subject." As regards an unelect infant, the sign confers nothing salvific. As regards the elect infant, the sign of itself confers nothing salvific, it is God that confers the salvific blessing, of which the mere outward sign is a covenantal seal and statement, "This is My child." The Lord, not the sign, did the conferring. We administered the sign in obedience, as children (seed) of Abraham. The unelect child was passed by by Him.
> 
> Baptizing your children in infancy wouldn't have given them an advantage as regards their election. The LORD determined what would be in that regard in eternity past. What God does is the inward reality of regeneration, when He pleases. It is also called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We do the outward baptizing because of the command.


You've hit the nail on the head. We reject the notion that baptism is a sign of the Lord conferring anything.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure, and there's the difference between us: Baptists believe that baptism is not a declaration and claim of God, but is a visible testimony given by the subject of his profession.



Umm...everything belongs to God by virtue of him being God. Creatures didn't know about baptism until God declared it in his word.

I don't like the way this sounds, brother. Honestly it doesn't sound right. Did you mean to say baptism isn't a claim of God?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Miss Marple said:


> David presumed the salvation of his dead son.



That's hardly a settled fact.


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's hardly a settled fact.


I would be interested in an explanation as to why this is doubtful or incorrect.


----------



## J.L. Allen

Post #204 and #202 are basically the end of the conversation ultimately. That's it. *EDIT: When you look at the two different posts, you'll see different ways of thinking behind them. The two views intersect on one sacrament from totally different angles. It reminds me of the story of two guys standing opposite over a number written on the ground. "It's a 6!" said one. "No, it's a 9!" said the other. In the end, we'll find out who was correct while enjoying the greatest feast ever put on.

Baptists, and I used to be one myself, view baptism from a baptism-first lens. Everything else must follow. When I became a Presbyterian, baptism was the result of a totally different thought process. The entire outworking of our differing hermeneutic and understanding of how God covenants with his people (even how we understand redemptive history) have been brought to bear at every turn in this thread and are irreconcilable. Why? Because we can't see past our own presuppositions. The only folks who do see it do so because they have been on both sides of the debate. I'm not sure if Rev. Keister was a Baptist before, but he articulated the position as if he's had the experience.

I don't think anyone is going to be convinced besides Anthony. Honestly, the way he's asking questions, it would seem he's starting to see the shift in himself I describe here in my post. This has been a trip, though!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678

J.L. Allen said:


> Post #204 and #202 are basically the end of the conversation ultimately. That's it. *EDIT: When you look at the two different posts, you'll see different ways of thinking behind them. The two views intersect on one sacrament from totally different angles. It reminds me of the story of two guys standing opposite over a number written on the ground. "It's a 6!" said one. "No, it's a 9!" said the other. In the end, we'll find out who was correct while enjoying the greatest feast ever put on.
> 
> Baptists, and I used to be one myself, view baptism from a baptism-first lens. Everything else must follow. When I became a Presbyterian, baptism was the result of a totally different thought process. The entire outworking of our differing hermeneutic and understanding of how God covenants with his people (even how we understand redemptive history) have been brought to bear at every turn in this thread and are irreconcilable. Why? Because we can't see past our own presuppositions. The only folks who do see it do so because they have been on both sides of the debate. I'm not sure if Rev. Keister was a Baptist before, but he articulated the position as if he's had the experience.
> 
> I don't think anyone is going to be convinced besides Anthony. Honestly, the way he's asking questions, it would seem he's starting to see the shift in himself I describe here in my post. This has been a trip, though!


I'll switch to the side with the most chocolate chip cookies [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Imputatio

I’ve said it before in this thread, but as someone who’s just beginning to go through this issue, I’m finding all the back and forth very helpful.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Charles Johnson said:


> I would be interested in an explanation as to why this is doubtful or incorrect.



It's likely that David was merely talking about going to _sheol_, the grave, the common destination of all human beings that die. In this place, David would "go to him".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Stephen L Smith said:


> thaty vers*e*s that


Argh. Typos. My pet peeve.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Umm...everything belongs to God by virtue of him being God. Creatures didn't know about baptism until God declared it in his word.
> 
> I don't like the way this sounds, brother. Honestly it doesn't sound right. Did you mean to say baptism isn't a claim of God?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Sure, baptism was invented by God, but that's no reason to make it into something that He didn't.
And no, Baptism isn't a claim of God--it is a visible action performed by visible people that does nothing more than give witness to the fact the he/she publicly professes faith in Christ.
It belongs to God in that God requires it, but it is not God "putting a seal" on anything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure, baptism was invented by God, but that's no reason to make it into something that He didn't.
> And no, Baptism isn't a claim of God--it is a visible action performed by visible people that does nothing more than give witness to the fact the he/she publicly professes faith in Christ.
> It belongs to God in that God requires it, but it is not God "putting a seal" on anything.



Good morning and Sabbath day to you! Let's reconvene on Monday if that's ok. I do have more questions but I'll save them for tomorrow. Get some rest brother and enjoy the rest of the day [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Romans678 said:


> Good morning and Sabbath day to you! Let's reconvene on Monday


Depends what time zone you mean. It is Monday here

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It's likely that David was merely talking about going to _sheol_, the grave, the common destination of all human beings that die. In this place, David would "go to him".


One objection I have to this interpretation is that David clearly found some comfort in the doctrine he's expressing, given that he stated it to explain why he was no longer fasting in sack cloth and ashes, and "eventually I'll die too" is hardly comforting, if it is not understood that at death souls depart to a place of rest and happiness. Moreover, David said "I shall go to him", and the unconscious laying up of a body in a tomb is not a conscious reunion of the kind David's words imply and in which he appears to take comfort.

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Charles Johnson said:


> One objection I have to this interpretation is that David clearly found some comfort in the doctrine he's expressing, given that he stated it to explain why he was no longer fasting in sack cloth and ashes, and "eventually I'll die too" is hardly comforting, if it is not understood that at death souls depart to a place of rest and happiness. Moreover, David said "I shall go to him", and the unconscious laying up of a body in a tomb is not a conscious reunion of the kind David's words imply and in which he appears to take comfort.


David's reply is more than just "eventually I'll die too." He actually fully explains why he fasted and wept _while the child was still alive_ - because the Lord might have been gracious and caused the child to live. Once the child died, he expresses contentment with the divine will.

He also acknowledges the reality that our tears do not benefit the dead - we cannot weep or pray them back to this life. Thus his next sentence, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> David's reply is more than just "eventually I'll die too." He actually fully explains why he fasted and wept _while the child was still alive_ - because the Lord might have been gracious and caused the child to live. Once the child died, he expresses contentment with the divine will.
> 
> He also acknowledges the reality that our tears do not benefit the dead - we cannot weep or pray them back to this life. Thus his next sentence, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me."



This is exactly right.

I see no evidence of "comfort" in David, any more than what I can sum up as follows: "I've cried all I can cry, and the Lord has had His way. There is nothing more now to do but move on and accept God's will".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is exactly right.
> 
> I see no evidence of "comfort" in David, any more than what I can sum up as follows: "I've cried all I can cry, and the Lord has had His way. There is nothing more now to do but move on and accept God's will".


Did the souls of the Old Testament saints go to heaven when they died? If they did, was David nevertheless ignorant of that fact?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## LilyG

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure, baptism was invented by God, but that's no reason to make it into something that He didn't.
> And no, Baptism isn't a claim of God--it is a visible action performed by visible people that does nothing more than give witness to the fact the he/she publicly professes faith in Christ.
> It belongs to God in that God requires it, but it is not God "putting a seal" on anything.



"Baptism, as circumcision, is a gift of God to his people, not of his people to God. Abraham did not bring circumcision to God; he "recieved" it from God. God gave it to him as a "sign" and a "seal," not to others but to himself. It is inadequate, therefore, to speak of baptism as 'the badge of a Christian man's profession..' ...The witness of baptism is not to others but to ourselves; and it is not by us but by God that the witness is borne." -B.B. Warfield

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure, baptism was invented by God, but that's no reason to make it into something that He didn't.
> And no, Baptism isn't a claim of God--it is a visible action performed by visible people that does nothing more than give witness to the fact the he/she publicly professes faith in Christ.
> It belongs to God in that God requires it, but it is not God "putting a seal" on anything.



OK, I'm gonna respond before I forget LOL.

OK brother just to make sure we are on the same page, can you help me understand what you mean by "claim" and "seal"? What I mean is, how would you define the two terms in this particular context?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure, baptism was invented by God, but that's no reason to make it into something that He didn't.
> And no, Baptism isn't a claim of God--it is a visible action performed by visible people that does nothing more than give witness to the fact the he/she publicly professes faith in Christ.
> It belongs to God in that God requires it, but it is not God "putting a seal" on anything.


I think we are talking about the same subject but approaching it with different questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears as though you are attempting to state "what" baptism is while I am attempting to state "why" baptism is. Why does it exist? What is it representing? Who does it belong to? Obviously it's "water + people", but there is a deeper meaning beyond the mere physical. 

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 4:11‭-‬12 ESV

And also...

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 ESV

Paul literally compares circumcision to baptism. It's right there in black and white, brother. When people are telling me baptism means nothing, and yet Paul compares it to the sign and seal of circumcision, what am I supposed to do with that? Do I stick to a strict materialistic view of baptism ("it's just water, it doesn't mean anything") or is there something spiritual going on there? Does baptism belong to God or men? Help me out here brother. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> I think we are talking about the same subject but approaching it with different questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears as though you are attempting to state "what" baptism is while I am attempting to state "why" baptism is. Why does it exist? What is it representing? Who does it belong to? Obviously it's "water + people", but there is a deeper meaning beyond the mere physical.
> 
> He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
> Romans 4:11‭-‬12 ESV
> 
> And also...
> 
> In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
> Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 ESV
> 
> Paul literally compares circumcision to baptism. It's right there in black and white, brother. When people are telling me baptism means nothing, and yet Paul compares it to the sign and seal of circumcision, what am I supposed to do with that? Do I stick to a strict materialistic view of baptism ("it's just water, it doesn't mean anything") or is there something spiritual going on there? Does baptism belong to God or men? Help me out here brother.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Circumcision never conferred salvation. Nor does baptism. They are external signs, performed by men, which God commanded (gave) them to do.
The way in which God gave circumcision to Abraham was in telling him, "Put this visible sign on yourself and your children." God never circumcised anyone in the flesh: He does what that earthly sign points to: He circumcises people in their heart. Baptism is not done by God: it is done by men in obedience to God.
You could compare it to the Sabbath. God gave His people the Sabbath. "So what? it's just a day--just a rotation of the earth! Doesn't God own the Sabbath? isn't it something He does to us?" Well, He does own the Sabbath, but keeping it is something we do. We obey God about the Sabbath, and are greatly blessed in it. Likewise, baptism is just water, and it's just a sign, but in obedience there is blessing.

No one is denying that baptism is linked to circumcision. But we are denying that because of that, we must apply the sign of the New Covenant in exactly the same way as its shadow in the old. Circumcision pointed to a better thing. We have that better thing now. The subjects have changed; the meaning has changed--or rather, the meaning that circumcision was pre-figuring has arrived and now is, far better and more glorious than circumcision was.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

LilyG said:


> "Baptism, as circumcision, is a gift of God to his people, not of his people to God. Abraham did not bring circumcision to God; he "recieved" it from God. God gave it to him as a "sign" and a "seal," not to others but to himself. It is inadequate, therefore, to speak of baptism as 'the badge of a Christian man's profession..' ...The witness of baptism is not to others but to ourselves; and it is not by us but by God that the witness is borne." -B.B. Warfield


Please see my above answer to Anthony


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Circumcision never conferred salvation. Nor does baptism. They are external signs, performed by men, which God commanded (gave) them to do.
> The way in which God gave circumcision to Abraham was in telling him, "Put this visible sign on yourself and your children." God never circumcised anyone in the flesh: He does what that earthly sign points to: He circumcises people in their heart. Baptism is not done by God: it is done by men in obedience to God.
> You could compare it to the Sabbath. God gave His people the Sabbath. "So what? it's just a day--just a rotation of the earth! Doesn't God own the Sabbath? isn't it something He does to us?" Well, He does own the Sabbath, but keeping it is something we do. We obey God about the Sabbath, and are greatly blessed in it. Likewise, baptism is just water, and it's just a sign, but in obedience there is blessing.
> 
> No one is denying that baptism is linked to circumcision. But we are denying that because of that, we must apply the sign of the New Covenant in exactly the same way as its shadow in the old. Circumcision pointed to a better thing. We have that better thing now. The subjects have changed; the meaning has changed--or rather, the meaning that circumcision was pre-figuring has arrived and now is, far better and more glorious than circumcision was.



Good morning brother! You are arguing against something no one in this thread has said. I have yet to see someone say baptism confers salvation. Not one. I have yet to see this sentiment on either side of the discussion. And if I said that please let me know so I can correct it.

But now you have brought up an entire new subject: the idea that baptism doesn't belong to God. Brother if that is the case, why are called ministers only required to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper? With your perspective, I can just baptize any random person on the street. Or any random person on the street can just begin baptizing people with no accountability. It's playing marbles with the diamonds of God.



Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Charles Johnson said:


> Did the souls of the Old Testament saints go to heaven when they died?



The same thing happened to OT saints as NT saints.



Charles Johnson said:


> If they did, was David nevertheless ignorant of that fact?



Whether David was fully ignorant of it, or whether the fullness of revelation on that topic hadn't come and David only had an inkling, the end result is the same.

We know (historically) that the Ancient Jews didn't have a fully-fleshed theology of the afterlife, compared to the revelation of the topic that we ourselves have.


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> We know (historically) that the Ancient Jews didn't have a fully-fleshed theology of the afterlife, compared to the revelation of the topic that we ourselves have.


If this is the case, then why have confidence that your interpretation given above is accurate?

While I grant that, due to the redemptive-historical unfolding of revelation, the OT saints did not have the _fullness_ of understanding concerning the afterlife, this does not mean they knew _nothing_. They believed in the resurrection (Heb. 11:19; Job 19:26), the return of Christ (Job 19:25), the judgment (Ecc. 12:14), heaven for the righteous (Psa. 73:24; Dan. 12:2), and hell for the wicked (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2).

Even so, that the OT saints lacked a "fully-fleshed theology of the afterlife" is largely irrelevant here because we are not talking about eschatology but about the covenant and its implications. David did not need the book of Revelation to know and confess that God's covenant faithfulness extended to his children.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> I am not at all saying that Abraham's sins weren't forgiven until Christ--I think perhaps the "1689 Federalists" would say that, but I'm somewhat at odds with them as well .
> Perhaps it is impossible for me to explain, but Abraham was saved believing in the coming Messiah, and God imputed to him righteousness. Who's? Christ's, even though Christ hadn't come yet. It's a mystery perhaps, but I believe that OT saints were saved by the blood of Christ, even though it had not yet been shed in time. I am at a loss to further explain how. They were not saved, though, by being circumcised, though that was part of obedience: they were saved by grace through faith, faith in the promises that were expressed covenantally. Those covenant promises were fulfilled in Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, who changed the rules, not by upending everything, but by fulfilling all the promises, and fulfilling what the pictures stood for. And so I believe the structure changes, to use your words. Circumcision was a picture of something better. That better thing is here. I DO have my cake, and I AM eating it, and it's good!
> 
> But please clarify: do you believe that every child of a believing parent who dies in infancy is elect?


Ok, we are getting somewhere here, but I am not sure you understand my point, because, although I have stated it many times now, you have yet to answer the question. You are now clear to me that OT saints are saved by faith in Christ. Great. We agree there. We also agree that they were not saved by circumcision or baptism. My question is this: if you believe that all the OT covenants are breakable, then how can Christ's saving work extend backwards into the Old Testament? How else could it extend backwards into the Old Testament _except by means of the covenants of grace_? My contention is that it can only do so covenantally, which means that the iterations of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament offered rock solid permanent salvation as their substance, which means, in turn, that the substance of the covenant of grace is the SAME in the OT as it is in the NT. Just because an OT iteration of the covenant of grace is looking forward doesn't mean that it lacks the substance to which it looks forward. To put it positively, if the Abrahamic covenant looks forward to Christ, Christ is offered. To put it yet another way, you CANNOT have a breakable covenant, and yet unbreakable salvation. This seems to be what you are trying to say that we can have, and which I find incoherent. It is a contradiction in terms. 

As to infants of believers, I think the biblical evidence points to God's mercy on the basis of the covenantal promises, such that believers can have every confidence that their infants who die are in the bosom of Abraham. We know, at any rate, that God is both merciful and just, and there won't be any mistakes as to the destiny of infants on judgment day. I would be uncomfortable saying that I know that every child of a believing parent who dies in infancy is elect, simply because the Bible stops short of saying that. It does say that the child of even one believing parent is positionally holy and set apart from the world. This would certainly point in a covenantal direction.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

greenbaggins said:


> As to infants of believers, I think the biblical evidence points to God's mercy on the basis of the covenantal promises, such that believers can have every confidence that their infants who die are in the bosom of Abraham. We know, at any rate, that God is both merciful and just, and there won't be any mistakes as to the destiny of infants on judgment day. I would be uncomfortable saying that I know that every child of a believing parent who dies in infancy is elect, simply because the Bible stops short of saying that. It does say that the child of even one believing parent is positionally holy and set apart from the world. *This would certainly point in a covenantal direction.*


I know we are coming at this thing from different angles, but I can't wrap my head around what this sentence means. Practically.. realistically.. given the earlier sentences in this snipped quote, what does the bolded sentence imply? We all agree that the Judge of all the earth will deal justly, so setting that aside as a comfort for grieving parents, what are you trying to say or add?

I don't think one should be embarrassed or hesitant to take the covenantal children view to its logical conclusion if that's your position. One infers many other things that the Bible stops short of saying explicitly if one is a paedobaptist. Even some baptists have dogmatically held to a variation of this tenuous belief, which strikes me as a very inconsistent position.

"We know that infants enter the kingdom, for we are convinced that all of our race who die in infancy are included in the election of grace, and partake in the redemption wrought out by our Lord Jesus." (Charles Spurgeon, _Come Ye Children_ page 39)

Let me just add that no doubt, one day looking back - if not in this life, then in glory - we will all see inconsistencies in our beliefs. So I hope the tone of this post does not convey any disrespect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The same thing happened to OT saints as NT saints.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether David was fully ignorant of it, or whether the fullness of revelation on that topic hadn't come and David only had an inkling, the end result is the same.
> 
> We know (historically) that the Ancient Jews didn't have a fully-fleshed theology of the afterlife, compared to the revelation of the topic that we ourselves have.


An interpretation that requires the prophet to be ignorant of fundamental doctrine in order to have said such a thing is a weak interpretation.
And I'm not so sure about these assertions to begin with. The Jews called the blessed place of the dead "Abraham's bosom", which means they went to be with Abraham. And Christ proves from Exodus that the dead are raised ("I am the God of Abraham").

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Charles Johnson said:


> An interpretation that requires the prophet to be ignorant of fundamental doctrine in order to have said such a thing is a weak interpretation.



My interpretation only requires that what we know to be true, to be true. We know that the Ancient Israelites didn't know much about the afterlife except that all people who die go to _sheol_ and that there would be a resurrection in the future (and not all Israelites accepted this anyway, hence the Sadducees). Yes, David was a prophet, but that doesn't mean that all truth for all time was revealed to David.



Charles Johnson said:


> And I'm not so sure about these assertions to begin with. The Jews called the blessed place of the dead "Abraham's bosom", which means they went to be with Abraham. And Christ proves from Exodus that the dead are raised ("I am the God of Abraham").



You can't judge what an Israelite in 1000 BC thought about a certain doctrine by what an Israelite in 30 AD thought about a certain doctrine.

That's 1000 years of revelation (including ALL of the Major and Minor prophets) between them.


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> My interpretation only requires that what we know to be true, to be true. We know that the Ancient Israelites didn't know much about the afterlife except that all people who die go to _sheol_ and that there would be a resurrection in the future (and not all Israelites accepted this anyway, hence the Sadducees). Yes, David was a prophet, but that doesn't mean that all truth for all time was revealed to David.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't judge what an Israelite in 1000 BC thought about a certain doctrine by what an Israelite in 30 AD thought about a certain doctrine.
> 
> That's 1000 years of revelation (including ALL of the Major and Minor prophets) between them.


Christ proved from Exodus that Abraham was alive with God. That was quite a bit before David.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Charles Johnson said:


> Christ proved from Exodus that Abraham was alive with God. That was quite a bit before David.



Yes, Christ in 30-ish AD proved to Jews that lived 1000 years after David, the logical implication of something from Abraham, 1000 years before David.

This in no-way automatically follows that David himself was aware of this.


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Yes, Christ in 30-ish AD proved to Jews that lived 1000 years after David, the logical implication of something from Abraham, 1000 years before David.
> 
> This in no-way automatically follows that David himself was aware of this.


So just to be clear, your claim is not that the state of the departed was not revealed, but that David didn't understand what had been revealed, in spite of being the human author of huge portions of the old testament, and that therefore he took no comfort in his future reunion with his departed son, instead embracing the false belief that they do not enjoy a conscious existence after death, while their bodies rested in a place called "the grave". And that is the true sense of his words "I will go to him". But this same assumption of the ignorance of the fathers of the afterlife should not be applied to other passages of the O.T, such as Exodus 3, when interpreting them. It is peculiar to David, and therefore we should not interpret his words as speaking of the afterlife. And therefore, it's totally doubtful believers can know the eternal state of the departed children with any confidence.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Charles Johnson said:


> So just to be clear, your claim is not that the state of the departed was not revealed, but that David didn't understand what had been revealed, in spite of being the human author of huge portions of the old testament, and that therefore he took no comfort in his future reunion with his departed son, instead embracing the false belief that they do not enjoy a conscious existence after death, while their bodies rested in a place called "the grave". And that is the true sense of his words "I will go to him". But this same assumption of the ignorance of the fathers of the afterlife should not be applied to other passages of the O.T, such as Exodus 3, when interpreting them. It is peculiar to David, and therefore we should not interpret his words as speaking of the afterlife. And therefore, it's totally doubtful believers can know the eternal state of the departed children with any confidence.



Well, it's clear you're not interested in my point of view based on this unnecessarily snide reply, so I am just going to move on. I suggest you do too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> Argh. Typos. My pet peeve.


Good brother it was a little 'tongue in cheek'; I have been amused at you correcting my grammar in the past - grammar is not my strong point


----------



## Charles Johnson

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, it's clear you're not interested in my point of view based on this unnecessarily snide reply, so I am just going to move on. I suggest you do too.


My point wasn't to be snide, but to put what I perceive to be the incongruities of this reading of Scripture into a single paragraph, so that if I'm understanding you correctly, the incongruity of it all would be made more apparent, and if I've gotten something wrong, you could clarify that point. When I said "just to be clear", that wasn't rhetorical. I want to leave the matter as clear as possible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just a side note as I gleamed through this thread for some time now...... Everyone who wants to quote Jeremiah 31 please read on to chapter 32.

They Shall Be My People; I Will Be Their God
Jer 32:36 “Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, ‘It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’: 
Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 
*Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 
Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. *
Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. 
Jer 32:42 “For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them. 
Jer 32:43 Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, ‘It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.’ 
Jer 32:44 Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, in the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, declares the LORD.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Good morning brother! You are arguing against something no one in this thread has said. I have yet to see someone say baptism confers salvation. Not one. I have yet to see this sentiment on either side of the discussion. And if I said that please let me know so I can correct it.
> 
> But now you have brought up an entire new subject: the idea that baptism doesn't belong to God. Brother if that is the case, why are called ministers only required to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper? With your perspective, I can just baptize any random person on the street. Or any random person on the street can just begin baptizing people with no accountability. It's playing marbles with the diamonds of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Very well, please tell me what you think baptism does. Or what God does in baptism.
What, in short, is your theology of baptism?
Mine is found in the LBCF.


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Ok, we are getting somewhere here, but I am not sure you understand my point, because, although I have stated it many times now, you have yet to answer the question. You are now clear to me that OT saints are saved by faith in Christ. Great. We agree there. We also agree that they were not saved by circumcision or baptism. My question is this: if you believe that all the OT covenants are breakable, then how can Christ's saving work extend backwards into the Old Testament? How else could it extend backwards into the Old Testament _except by means of the covenants of grace_? My contention is that it can only do so covenantally, which means that the iterations of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament offered rock solid permanent salvation as their substance, which means, in turn, that the substance of the covenant of grace is the SAME in the OT as it is in the NT. Just because an OT iteration of the covenant of grace is looking forward doesn't mean that it lacks the substance to which it looks forward. To put it positively, if the Abrahamic covenant looks forward to Christ, Christ is offered. To put it yet another way, you CANNOT have a breakable covenant, and yet unbreakable salvation. This seems to be what you are trying to say that we can have, and which I find incoherent. It is a contradiction in terms.
> 
> As to infants of believers, I think the biblical evidence points to God's mercy on the basis of the covenantal promises, such that believers can have every confidence that their infants who die are in the bosom of Abraham. We know, at any rate, that God is both merciful and just, and there won't be any mistakes as to the destiny of infants on judgment day. I would be uncomfortable saying that I know that every child of a believing parent who dies in infancy is elect, simply because the Bible stops short of saying that. It does say that the child of even one believing parent is positionally holy and set apart from the world. This would certainly point in a covenantal direction.


We are indeed getting somewhere! This is both unexpected and cheering.
I'll grant that salvation in Christ was actually given to the OT saints--I've said that already--but I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants. They were pictures of a better thing, and believing the promises--trusting in God to send a Messiah to forgive sins, was what joined one to Christ. Those Israelites under the Mosaic administration who were circumcised in their hearts were saved knowing that the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away their sins: they were saved believing that someone was coming who would keep the law they'd broken, and pay the debt they owed. I believe many, certainly Abraham, understood what those covenants were signifying, and placed their trust in Messiah to come, not in the shadows that only pointed to him.
Perhaps we're saying the same thing in different ways up till now, but I do say that you can have a breakable covenant--the Mosaic was breakable, as God says in Jer. 31, but all the saints in that breakable covenant had an immutable salvation. So the two things can exist side by side.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Very well, please tell me what you think baptism does. Or what God does in baptism.
> What, in short, is your theology of baptism?
> Mine is found in the LBCF.


Well, I'll give it my best shot without looking at the confessions for help (pray for me brother).

I believe that Baptism mirrors and broadens circumcision, that it is for our children, and it marks the entrance into the church. I do not believe it confers salvation. I believe those that are in union with Christ by the Spirit receive spiritual benefit in baptism, and for the hypocrite they shall reap the flood of God's wrath on that day. I believe that the elect do benefit from baptism and from the Lord's Supper. I do not believe that they are mere empty rituals, but those that benefit from it are in union with Christ by the Spirit.

I believe a consistent Calvinism allows for infant baptism, that if we were chosen before the foundation of the world household covenant baptism is the only logical end. I believe that requiring a certain "ascent to knowledge" and a certain "depth of water" before administering baptism create stumbling blocks for the least of us. 

I believe that in an effort to free ourselves from arbitrary requirements of salvation, we ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for salvation. In other words: our preaching doesn't match our practice. We preach "grace, grace" on the pulpit but say "wait, wait" at the baptistry...

I believe credible confession has wrongly replaced baptism as a sacrament in most churches today. I believe we over-value the credible confession over Baptism and The Lord's Supper. I believe this is a grave error and we are missing the mark on this one.

This is all off of the top of my head, from podcasts to lectures to Scripture and the like. Forgive me if I am not able to defend each one of these points. I am but a babe in this discussion. I mean no harm, I only mean to please Christ to the uttermost. And that includes bringing my little babies to the King.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Charles Johnson said:


> My point wasn't to be snide, but to put what I perceive to be the incongruities of this reading of Scripture into a single paragraph, so that if I'm understanding you correctly, the incongruity of it all would be made more apparent, and if I've gotten something wrong, you could clarify that point. When I said "just to be clear", that wasn't rhetorical. I want to leave the matter as clear as possible.


Friend, an honest and fair reading of your post will find that it went further than what SeanPatrickCornell actually typed in his responses. I think there's a term for exaggerating someone's position on a given matter...


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just a side note as I gleamed through this thread for some time now...... Everyone who wants to quote Jeremiah 31 please read on to chapter 32.
> 
> They Shall Be My People; I Will Be Their God
> Jer 32:36 “Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, ‘It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’:
> Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety.
> Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
> *Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.
> Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. *
> Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
> Jer 32:42 “For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.
> Jer 32:43 Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, ‘It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.’
> Jer 32:44 Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, in the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, declares the LORD.”


So which field have you purchased?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> So which field have you purchased?


I inherited a little field in Indiana.  And it is cold here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I wander in to ask something of the Baptist brothers that comes to mind- are the children of believers in the church members of the visible church? If not, how does Scripture define their relationship to God? They’re holy and set apart to him- in what way would that be if not members of the household of God?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> We are indeed getting somewhere! This is both unexpected and cheering.
> I'll grant that salvation in Christ was actually given to the OT saints--I've said that already--but I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants. They were pictures of a better thing, and believing the promises--trusting in God to send a Messiah to forgive sins, was what joined one to Christ. Those Israelites under the Mosaic administration who were circumcised in their hearts were saved knowing that the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away their sins: they were saved believing that someone was coming who would keep the law they'd broken, and pay the debt they owed. I believe many, certainly Abraham, understood what those covenants were signifying, and placed their trust in Messiah to come, not in the shadows that only pointed to him.
> Perhaps we're saying the same thing in different ways up till now, but I do say that you can have a breakable covenant--the Mosaic was breakable, as God says in Jer. 31, but all the saints in that breakable covenant had an immutable salvation. So the two things can exist side by side.




Eze 37:21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

This is what I don't get, this passage clearly concerns the New Covenant (everlasting covenant v26), and speaks of the Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, and Davidic Covenant. That's not a coincidence. 

Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Jer 32:41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.

Everlasting covenant (New Covenant) again, using language from the Abrahamic Covenant (I will be their God). I don't see how they are just pictures...they are intricately tied to the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

Jeri Tanner said:


> I wander in to ask something of the Baptist brothers that comes to mind- are the children of believers in the church members of the visible church? If not, how does Scripture define their relationship to God? They’re holy and set apart to him- in what way would that be if not members of the household of God?



I would love to answer that but there is a slight problem...I have to disqualify myself because I currently identify as Bap-terian (or Pr-aptist for that matter).

OK I'll go for it. Yes ma'am, they are a part of the visible church. They eat with us, talk with us, pray with us, sing with us, laugh with us, rejoice with us, mourn with us, read with us, worship with us, etc. All within the sphere of the communion of believers. If Christ is the Shepherd and the sheep bring forth a lamb, that lamb is not left out of the fold. The lamb walks humbly with their parents as their parents walk humbly with their Shepherd. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, it's clear you're not interested in my point of view based on this unnecessarily snide reply, so I am just going to move on. I suggest you do too.





Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Friend, an honest and fair reading of your post will find that it went further than what SeanPatrickCornell actually typed in his responses. I think there's a term for exaggerating someone's position on a given matter...


I have been following this discussion at a distance, and I am joining only to express what I expect many others are thinking.

There is no need to take offence at another person’s critique of your position.

Besides, a critique is not even what was offered; the member made it plain that he was seeking to understand. You would serve the discussion better by responding with equal graciousness.

If, when there are no grounds to assume lack of charity (are there are no such grounds, no such “honest and fair reading”), you then choose to read his request for clarification in a negative light, then it is not he who is guilty of a lack of charity.

I think it is worth considering that bias is leading you to read into others’ words something that is not there. Disagreement does not mean hostility.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Well, I'll give it my best shot without looking at the confessions for help (pray for me brother).
> 
> I believe that Baptism mirrors and broadens circumcision, that it is for our children, and it marks the entrance into the church. I do not believe it confers salvation. I believe those that are in union with Christ by the Spirit receive spiritual benefit in baptism, and for the hypocrite they shall reap the flood of God's wrath on that day. I believe that the elect do benefit from baptism and from the Lord's Supper. I do not believe that they are mere empty rituals, but those that benefit from it are in union with Christ by the Spirit.
> 
> I believe a consistent Calvinism allows for infant baptism, that if we were chosen before the foundation of the world household covenant baptism is the only logical end. I believe that requiring a certain "ascent to knowledge" and a certain "depth of water" before administering baptism create stumbling blocks for the least of us.
> 
> I believe that in an effort to free ourselves from arbitrary requirements of salvation, we ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for salvation. In other words: our preaching doesn't match our practice. We preach "grace, grace" on the pulpit but say "wait, wait" at the baptistry...
> 
> I believe credible confession has wrongly replaced baptism as a sacrament in most churches today. I believe we over-value the credible confession over Baptism and The Lord's Supper. I believe this is a grave error and we are missing the mark on this one.
> 
> This is all off of the top of my head, from podcasts to lectures to Scripture and the like. Forgive me if I am not able to defend each one of these points. I am but a babe in this discussion. I mean no harm, I only mean to please Christ to the uttermost. And that includes bringing my little babies to the King.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


If as you say those that benefit from baptism are "in union with Christ by the spirit," and you also say that not every infant who is baptized is saved, what does union with Christ mean to you?
To me, union with Christ means regeneration. There is no salvation outside of union with Christ; there is no loss of salvation once Christ has joined us to Himself.
Why is household covenant baptism the only logical end of Calvinism? Not everyone is chosen: and all who are actually chosen will be saved, regardless of parentage.
Baptists don't use the term "sacrament," usually, because of the baggage it carries from Popery. We prefer "ordinances," and we apply them at the time and in the way we see commanded in Scripture. So to say we've replaced one sacrament with something else shows that you don't really know what either position is saying. Perhaps you could ask more questions and make less declarations.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> If as you say those that benefit from baptism are "in union with Christ by the spirit," and you also say that not every infant who is baptized is saved, what does union with Christ mean to you?
> To me, union with Christ means regeneration. There is no salvation outside of union with Christ; there is no loss of salvation once Christ has joined us to Himself.
> Why is household covenant baptism the only logical end of Calvinism? Not everyone is chosen: and all who are actually chosen will be saved, regardless of parentage.
> Baptists don't use the term "sacrament," usually, because of the baggage it carries from Popery. We prefer "ordinances," and we apply them at the time and in the way we see commanded in Scripture. So to say we've replaced one sacrament with something else shows that you don't really know what either position is saying. Perhaps you could ask more questions and make less declarations.



I did not grow up in the sphere of the local church. I grew up in a exceedingly wicked household. I started out in a Charismatic madhouse, departed to Nominal Non-Denom, which led me to a lovely 1689-affirming expository-preaching communion of saints. We've been there for almost ten years. I can tell you from what I've experienced there are discrepancies regarding our baptistic framework. Notice I said "our". We preach, write, and sing of God's infinite grace that transcends time and space but in practice we treat it as though it can't work past a certain age group. That is not consistent with God's grace, brother.

If I sound direct and forward, I mean to be. Not out of anger or frustration but out of expediency. I mean well. Out of a concern for faith and practice I speak. My declarations mean nothing outside of the declarations of God. Dare I say, my profession means NOTHING compared to the profession of God in His promises.

I get it, brother. Something we have been practicing for years and years. Does this truth about God's promises to our little ones make all of our years of faith and service mean nothing? Does this mean that we have incurred a greater judgment by not baptizing our children earlier on? Have he done a great sin against Christ by the neglect of this Ordinance? Well if this be true...

...thanks be to God in Christ Jesus for his His infinite grace!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> I believe that Baptism mirrors and broadens circumcision, that it is for our children, and it marks the entrance into the church. I do not believe it confers salvation. I believe those that are in union with Christ by the Spirit receive spiritual benefit in baptism, *and for the hypocrite they shall reap the flood of God's wrath on that day*. I believe that the elect do benefit from baptism and from the Lord's Supper. I do not believe that they are mere empty rituals, but those that benefit from it are in union with Christ by the Spirit.


In your view, how do you see a non-elect infant who has just received an involuntary sprinkling meeting the Biblical definition of a hypocrite?


Romans678 said:


> I believe that in an effort to free ourselves from arbitrary requirements of salvation, *we ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for salvation*. In other words: our preaching doesn't match our practice. We preach "grace, grace" on the pulpit but say "wait, wait" at the baptistry...


Did you mean to say that baptists ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for _baptism_? If you did mean what you typed (salvation), what do you assert are the arbitrary requirements for *salvation* established by the baptist? Baptism? A credible profession of faith? Based on my understanding, I don't think either of those are an accurate representation of baptist preaching or practice.

_The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version_
Q.89: What does God, in His gospel, require of sinners that they may be saved?
A: God, in His gospel, requires of sinners faith in Jesus Christ and repentance unto life that they may escape His wrath due for their sin, and be saved.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Hi Jeri, I don't think a baptist has answered you (sorry Anthony! ) so let me chime in with at least a brief response.


Jeri Tanner said:


> I wander in to ask something of the Baptist brothers that comes to mind- are the children of believers in the church members of the visible church? If not, how does Scripture define their relationship to God? They’re holy and set apart to him- in what way would that be if not members of the household of God?


It depends. If you are referring to all children of believers, or children of believers who are unbelievers, then no.

Let me make the assumption you are referring to all children of believers, at least until they demonstrate they do not have the "essence" of the covenant (please correct me if I am mistaken). If so, what Scripture are you using to support the assertion inherent in your post that all children of believers are holy and set apart to God? To me, I read that sentence as if you believe it is settled fact, but it might help add context to the question if you define what you mean or anchor it to the Scriptures. If you're referring directly to 1 Corinthians 7, then my follow up would be what is your interpretation of that passage, particularly as it relates to Paul also stating an unbelieving spouse is sanctified?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Hi Jeri, I don't think a baptist has answered you (sorry Anthony! ) so let me chime in with at least a brief response.
> 
> It depends. If you are referring to all children of believers, or children of believers who are unbelievers, then no.
> 
> Let me make the assumption you are referring to all children of believers, at least until they demonstrate they do not have the "essence" of the covenant (please correct me if I am mistaken). If so, what Scripture are you using to support the assertion inherent in your post that all children of believers are holy and set apart to God? To me, I read that sentence as if you believe it is settled fact, but it might help add context to the question if you define what you mean or anchor it to the Scriptures. If you're referring directly to 1 Corinthians 7, then my follow up would be what is your interpretation of that passage, particularly as it relates to Paul also stating an unbelieving spouse is sanctified?


She's referring to 1 Cor. 7. Paul says they are holy, children of believers, and an unbelieving spouse of a believer. Jeri is asking for the baptist interpretation of that in her question, how is that true if they are not members of the visible church?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

If the ask is for a baptist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, then there are definitely a few threads on this forum relating to the topic. I know I've seen this link provided as a good summary of some baptist perspectives. Does that help?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> If the question is merely what is the baptist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, then there are definitely a few threads on this forum relating to the topic. I know I've seen this link provided as a good summary of some baptist perspectives. Does that help?


Thank you for the link. It posits a great question: “The holiness of the children is taken to be such that it qualifies them for baptism. The holiness of the unbelieving spouse, however, does not qualify him or her for baptism. What exactly is the holiness that the children possess?”

It really is a great question- I didn’t read the whole article, but my first thought is that surely the standing of children in a household differs from that of an unbelieving spouse. It being a great blessing and privilege to be initiated by baptism into the outward administration of the covenant of grace (ie visible church membership), an unbelieving spouse who is contrary to God may miss out on those privileges and benefits, but why should the child of the believing parent? That child is not unbelieving or contrary to God’s ordinances…?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Jeri Tanner said:


> That child is not unbelieving or contrary to God’s ordinances…?


Well, that is the Great question. Is the child a believer?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Well, that is the Great question. Is the child a believer?


He could be?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> I did not grow up in the sphere of the local church. I grew up in a exceedingly wicked household. I started out in a Charismatic madhouse, departed to Nominal Non-Denom, which led me to a lovely 1689-affirming expository-preaching communion of saints. We've been there for almost ten years. I can tell you from what I've experienced there are discrepancies regarding our baptistic framework. Notice I said "our". We preach, write, and sing of God's infinite grace that transcends time and space but in practice we treat it as though it can't work past a certain age group. That is not consistent with God's grace, brother.
> 
> If I sound direct and forward, I mean to be. Not out of anger or frustration but out of expediency. I mean well. Out of a concern for faith and practice I speak. My declarations mean nothing outside of the declarations of God. Dare I say, my profession means NOTHING compared to the profession of God in His promises.
> 
> I get it, brother. Something we have been practicing for years and years. Does this truth about God's promises to our little ones make all of our years of faith and service mean nothing? Does this mean that we have incurred a greater judgment by not baptizing our children earlier on? Have he done a great sin against Christ by the neglect of this Ordinance? Well if this be true...
> 
> ...thanks be to God in Christ Jesus for his His infinite grace!
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Perhaps you need to find a church that understands the LBCF, as well as affirming it.

Or perhaps you should find a Presbyterian church near you. You're sounding very adamantly anti-Baptist, and if you do decide your conscience requires you to be a peadobaptist, you can't do much better than the OPC. I've always enjoyed my opportunities to worship with them.

But let me ask you one more thing: if you say we are replacing the "sacrament of Baptism" with "credible profession," how would you treat the Lord's Supper? Many paedobaptist churches require that one be able to examine himself before partaking--isn't that doing the same thing? Are the children not required to make a "credible profession" before the sacrament of the Lord's supper? Curious about your thoughts.


----------



## Taylor

Ben Zartman said:


> Many paedobaptist churches require that one be able to examine himself before partaking--isn't that doing the same thing?


Scripture gives a clear command that anyone partaking in the Lord's Supper must examine themselves first (1 Cor. 11:28). No such command is given for baptism.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> Eze 37:21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
> Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
> Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
> Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
> Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
> Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
> Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> Eze 37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
> 
> This is what I don't get, this passage clearly concerns the New Covenant (everlasting covenant v26), and speaks of the Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, and Davidic Covenant. That's not a coincidence.
> 
> Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
> Jer 32:39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
> Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
> Jer 32:41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.
> 
> Everlasting covenant (New Covenant) again, using language from the Abrahamic Covenant (I will be their God). I don't see how they are just pictures...they are intricately tied to the Covenant of Grace.


Sorry for the delay in getting to this: I have a full time job and three teenage daughters who homeschool, so my computer time is limited, which is probably for the best.....

When God speaks about gathering Israel in these passages, as you noted, He's speaking of the Israel of God. So the language of "dwelling in the land" and "this land" does not speak of a patch of real estate in Palestine: it has a spiritual significance: we are in the Land of Canaan who are saved. And even we are seeking a better country, like Abraham was: one not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.
So when it says, as another posted above, that we'll build houses and sit under fig trees--is that figurative, do you think? Is that speaking in earthly terms, easy for earthly people to understand, of a better reality? I think so, just like the Psalm that says we'll sacrifice (is it oxen?) doesn't mean we should go out and start killing cattle.
Likewise, when God tells Israel that they and their descent will live in the land, there's a better promise hidden there. Those who receive the promise; those who are the Israel of God, will inherit what these promises really mean. The promise of grace is typified in this family language, that God will pour out blessings on His elect, and that their descent will have like grace poured on them. We can have great hope that our descendants will be saved, and we can bring them under the preaching of the Word which is God's ordinary means of calling sinners to Himself, but we must not fetch the shadow into the substance and regard them as other than sinners by nature, and salvable by grace if God has chosen them. The mark put on them in the past by birth has passed away with the coming of a better birth of which they must partake before they join the Israel of God.


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> So the language of "dwelling in the land" and "this land" does not speak of a patch of real estate in Palestine: it has a spiritual significance: we are in the Land of Canaan who are saved. And even we are seeking a better country, like Abraham was: one not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.


So you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. The dwelling in the land is part of the everlasting covenant at first given to Abraham and his seed. Of which Gal. 3, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." What promise? The Abrahamic Covenant (promise). 

Yet what about the Davidic Covenant? You didn't address that. 
Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

This of course speaks of Christ, as the Davidic covenant is an everlasting covenant itself, that Christ would reign as King forever. 

What about the Mosaic Covenant? You also did not address this.

Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This covenant is between the Redeemer and the redeemed (this is shown clearly in Ex. 19) that redemption is the basis for giving the law. 

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

The promise under Abraham of I will be their God, and they shall be my people, comes to fulfillment in under the Mosaic era (Ex. 6:7) when Israel commits to be His people (The Redeemer and the redeemed out of Egypt) (Ex. 24:7-8). See Gal. 3:17-18. Further, the law clearly established under the Mosaic Covenant for the redeemed is fulfilled in Christ (Mt. 5:17). I.e. The moral law continues to be the perfect standard of obedience in the Covenant of Grace for God's redeemed people.

Question 101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?
Answer: The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifests his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.


Further, I'd say this is a good synopsis by Wilhelmus a'Brakel, "(5) The Old Testament is the very embodiment of the covenant of grace, administered in the old fashion by way of shadows—and nothing other than that. If the Old Testament were other than the covenant of grace, the death of a testator other than Jesus Christ would be necessary, for no testament is confirmed except in the death of the testator (Heb 9:16-17). Furthermore, the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, having been in existence since the time of Adam, nor consisted in the inheritance of Canaan, as we have shown in detail in the previous chapter."

You can find the whole argument here: https://www.apuritansmind.com/coven...t-the-covenant-of-grace-by-wilhelmus-abrakel/

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben, how can salvation be separate from the OT covenants when Paul so clearly ties them together in Galatians 3? Those who are of faith are the children of Abraham. In other words, those who have faith are of the children promised to Abraham _in the covenant_. This proves that the promise of children to Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17 is NOT, first and foremost, genealogical children, but _spiritual children_. This is always the case with the Abraham children. As Jesus says, "God can raise up children for Abraham out of these stones." And when Paul says that not all Israel are of Israel, he is saying that genealogical descent from Abraham does not mean they are children of Abraham, and that Gentiles who are grafted in (to use the tree analogy of Romans 11) are children of Abraham. The spiritual reality is clearly present even in the OT, and it is a spiritual reality encompassing faith in a covenantal setting. So you have divorced covenant from salvation in the OT, something Paul and Jesus would most certainly disagree with. Of course, most of the spiritual children of Abraham in the OT were also genealogical children. But not all. Rahab, Ruth, the mixture of Egyptians who joined with Israel in going to the promised land, are just a few examples of Abrahamic children in the spiritual sense _in the OT_. You have no biblical evidence whatsoever to divorce salvation from covenant in the OT. I have just presented quite a lot of biblical evidence showing that salvation is covenantal in the OT.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Romans678

Romans922 said:


> So you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. The dwelling in the land is part of the everlasting covenant at first given to Abraham and his seed. Of which Gal. 3, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." What promise? The Abrahamic Covenant (promise).
> 
> Yet what about the Davidic Covenant? You didn't address that.
> Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
> Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
> Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
> 
> This of course speaks of Christ, as the Davidic covenant is an everlasting covenant itself, that Christ would reign as King forever.
> 
> What about the Mosaic Covenant? You also did not address this.
> 
> Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
> Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
> Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
> Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> This covenant is between the Redeemer and the redeemed (this is shown clearly in Ex. 19) that redemption is the basis for giving the law.
> 
> Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
> Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
> 
> The promise under Abraham of I will be their God, and they shall be my people, comes to fulfillment in under the Mosaic era (Ex. 6:7) when Israel commits to be His people (The Redeemer and the redeemed out of Egypt) (Ex. 24:7-8). See Gal. 3:17-18. Further, the law clearly established under the Mosaic Covenant for the redeemed is fulfilled in Christ (Mt. 5:17). I.e. The moral law continues to be the perfect standard of obedience in the Covenant of Grace for God's redeemed people.
> 
> Question 101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?
> Answer: The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifests his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.
> 
> 
> Further, I'd say this is a good synopsis by Wilhelmus a'Brakel, "(5) The Old Testament is the very embodiment of the covenant of grace, administered in the old fashion by way of shadows—and nothing other than that. If the Old Testament were other than the covenant of grace, the death of a testator other than Jesus Christ would be necessary, for no testament is confirmed except in the death of the testator (Heb 9:16-17). Furthermore, the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, having been in existence since the time of Adam, nor consisted in the inheritance of Canaan, as we have shown in detail in the previous chapter."
> 
> You can find the whole argument here: https://www.apuritansmind.com/coven...t-the-covenant-of-grace-by-wilhelmus-abrakel/


Wow...I need to take some time and read through this more. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> So you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. The dwelling in the land is part of the everlasting covenant at first given to Abraham and his seed. Of which Gal. 3, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." What promise? The Abrahamic Covenant (promise).
> 
> Yet what about the Davidic Covenant? You didn't address that.
> Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
> Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
> Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
> 
> This of course speaks of Christ, as the Davidic covenant is an everlasting covenant itself, that Christ would reign as King forever.
> 
> What about the Mosaic Covenant? You also did not address this.
> 
> Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
> Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
> Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
> Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> This covenant is between the Redeemer and the redeemed (this is shown clearly in Ex. 19) that redemption is the basis for giving the law.
> 
> Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
> Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
> 
> The promise under Abraham of I will be their God, and they shall be my people, comes to fulfillment in under the Mosaic era (Ex. 6:7) when Israel commits to be His people (The Redeemer and the redeemed out of Egypt) (Ex. 24:7-8). See Gal. 3:17-18. Further, the law clearly established under the Mosaic Covenant for the redeemed is fulfilled in Christ (Mt. 5:17). I.e. The moral law continues to be the perfect standard of obedience in the Covenant of Grace for God's redeemed people.
> 
> Question 101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?
> Answer: The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifests his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.
> 
> 
> Further, I'd say this is a good synopsis by Wilhelmus a'Brakel, "(5) The Old Testament is the very embodiment of the covenant of grace, administered in the old fashion by way of shadows—and nothing other than that. If the Old Testament were other than the covenant of grace, the death of a testator other than Jesus Christ would be necessary, for no testament is confirmed except in the death of the testator (Heb 9:16-17). Furthermore, the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, having been in existence since the time of Adam, nor consisted in the inheritance of Canaan, as we have shown in detail in the previous chapter."
> 
> You can find the whole argument here: https://www.apuritansmind.com/coven...t-the-covenant-of-grace-by-wilhelmus-abrakel/


I agree with all of this, unless I've missed something. It looks like you've got the covenants pretty well nailed down. Nobody is saying that there wasn't grace in the former covenants--they pre-figured Christ! There was the sure promise of Christ! They were part and parcel of God's redemptive plan. And there were aspects of their administration that passed away or changed with the coming of Christ. But with this different administration (Jesus goes so far as to call it "New" at the Last Supper), comes a much simpler and more glorious administration. Is it so hard to believe that the sign changed as well, both in its form and in its subjects?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, how can salvation be separate from the OT covenants when Paul so clearly ties them together in Galatians 3? Those who are of faith are the children of Abraham. In other words, those who have faith are of the children promised to Abraham _in the covenant_. This proves that the promise of children to Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17 is NOT, first and foremost, genealogical children, but _spiritual children_. This is always the case with the Abraham children. As Jesus says, "God can raise up children for Abraham out of these stones." And when Paul says that not all Israel are of Israel, he is saying that genealogical descent from Abraham does not mean they are children of Abraham, and that Gentiles who are grafted in (to use the tree analogy of Romans 11) are children of Abraham. The spiritual reality is clearly present even in the OT, and it is a spiritual reality encompassing faith in a covenantal setting. So you have divorced covenant from salvation in the OT, something Paul and Jesus would most certainly disagree with. Of course, most of the spiritual children of Abraham in the OT were also genealogical children. But not all. Rahab, Ruth, the mixture of Egyptians who joined with Israel in going to the promised land, are just a few examples of Abrahamic children in the spiritual sense _in the OT_. You have no biblical evidence whatsoever to divorce salvation from covenant in the OT. I have just presented quite a lot of biblical evidence showing that salvation is covenantal in the OT.


I think something's been missed here, probably by me, because it sounds like you're arguing for my side. You're correct in all of this, and put it very well. Where you've gone astray is in continuing to count your physical descent as "children of Abraham" before they actually become so by means of the New Birth.


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> I agree with all of this, unless I've missed something. It looks like you've got the covenants pretty well nailed down. Nobody is saying that there wasn't grace in the former covenants--they pre-figured Christ! There was the sure promise of Christ! They were part and parcel of God's redemptive plan. And there were aspects of their administration that passed away or changed with the coming of Christ. But with this different administration (Jesus goes so far as to call it "New" at the Last Supper), comes a much simpler and more glorious administration. Is it so hard to believe that the sign changed as well, both in its form and in its subjects?


The point in all of that is not that they contain grace but they are in multiple passages inseparably tied to the everlasting covenant of grace.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> The point in all of that is not that they contain grace but they are in multiple passages inseparably tied to the everlasting covenant of grace.


Of course. They are steps along the path of God's plan of Redemption. The LBCF ties the Covenant of Grace to the promised Seed of the woman in the garden. We are now in the full flower of the tree that sprang up then. But the stakes that supported the sapling in its infancy must be removed lest they hinder the tree, likewise the shadows that assisted the covenant in it's early stages must end so that the full glory will be seen. No longer must we worship at just one physical place; no longer must we sacrifice animals in Jerusalem; and no longer must we cling to the shadow of physical circumcision for identity, nor apply it's counterpart to the wrong people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Of course. They are steps along the path of God's plan of Redemption. The LBCF ties the Covenant of Grace to the promised Seed of the woman in the garden. We are now in the full flower of the tree that sprang up then. But the stakes that supported the sapling in its infancy must be removed lest they hinder the tree, likewise the shadows that assisted the covenant in it's early stages must end so that the full glory will be seen. No longer must we worship at just one physical place; no longer must we sacrifice animals in Jerusalem; and no longer must we cling to the shadow of physical circumcision for identity, nor apply it's counterpart to the wrong people.



I agree, we must no longer worship at just one physical place, sacrifice animals in Jerusalem, and cling to the shadow of physical circumcision. with that being said...

God has revealed greater mercy through the vehicles of the Church of Christ (physical place/the Church), the once for all offering of body of Christ(animal sacrifice/Christ's crucifixion and resurrection), and the baptism of Christ (physical circumcision/covenant baptism).

It seems like we successfully find one-to-one comparisons on ordinances from the OT to NT, then begin to stumble when baptism is brought up. It's clear as day. You said it in your comment. The full glory of God's grace for his people is witnessed in baptism. His grace as evidenced by bringing in the gentiles, has been BROADENED not restricted. It doesn't make much sense to use the examples you gave above as God unveiling his mercy through greater means in the NT and then suddenly restricting and tightening requirements in regards to baptism.

Thats my entire point. we guard baptism like it's the Lord's Supper. That is not commanded in Scripture and it is an arbitrary restriction not made by our Lord or any of the Holy Spirit inspired NT writers. How is this any different than requiring people to speak in tongues (Charismatic Pentecostals) to be welcomed in the visible fold? 

And how do we determine who the wrong people are without being able to see in their hearts? How do you know who the elect are by mere appearances and verbal affirmations? 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans922

Ben Zartman said:


> Of course. They are steps along the path of God's plan of Redemption. The LBCF ties the Covenant of Grace to the promised Seed of the woman in the garden. We are now in the full flower of the tree that sprang up then. But the stakes that supported the sapling in its infancy must be removed lest they hinder the tree, likewise the shadows that assisted the covenant in it's early stages must end so that the full glory will be seen. No longer must we worship at just one physical place; no longer must we sacrifice animals in Jerusalem; and no longer must we cling to the shadow of physical circumcision for identity, nor apply it's counterpart to the wrong people.


The promise of being a spiritual people by faith with a great inheritance of a heavenly country, how does that 'hinder the tree'?

The promise of a forever king to reign over all peoples and nations, how does that 'hinder the tree'?

The promise of being God's treasured possession, a royal priesthood and a holy people, how does that 'hinder the tree'?


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> I think something's been missed here, probably by me, because it sounds like you're arguing for my side. You're correct in all of this, and put it very well. Where you've gone astray is in continuing to count your physical descent as "children of Abraham" before they actually become so by means of the New Birth.


What it appears to me that you're missing is that I was describing the OT covenants as operating the same way as the new covenant. You keep talking about shadow and type in relation to the OT, and yes, paedos believe that the OT consists of many types and shadows. What you don't seem to realize is that type and shadow _still have the substance_ of the covenant of grace, which is salvation. The covenants' essence is still salvation in the OT. You put much too much discontinuity between type and anti-type. 

Read Romans 4 once again, very carefully, and you will notice that the SIGN of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision) points to JUSTIFICATION, which is EXACTLY the SAME justification as believers have today. See especially Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." The sign is an essential part of the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, what it points to is ALSO an essential part of the Abrahamic covenant. The thing it pointed to was the righteousness of Christ, and salvation by having that faith in the Savior. Romans 4 is completely inexplicable in your paradigm, wherein salvation and covenant are completely divorced from each other in the OT. You are also completely divorcing sign from thing signified. In order for your position to work, the sign of circumcision has to be part of the Abrahamic covenant, whereas the righteousness of which circumcision is the sign is NOT part of the Abrahamic covenant. How in the world can you posit such a divorce between sign and thing signified as to claim the sign is covenantal, yet the thing it points to is not? This is, quite frankly, absurd. You have not answered my exegesis of relevant passages in comment 263, either. 

In order for the credo position to work as you have articulated it, you have to strip away the spiritual, salvific aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and argue that there weren't any saving aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, that it was all physical and related to the land. But as soon as you see what Romans 4 really says, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, and you start to see that the Abrahamic covenant is, in fact, THE SAME covenant as the new covenant of today in its substance. The signs of it have changed, but NOT the substance. Circumcision and baptism both point to the blood of Christ cleansing sinners of their sin. Baptism is bloodless because the blood has been finally spilt. 

As to the appearance of my arguing for your position, it is only appearance, because what I am contending for is the continuity of substance between Abrahamic and new covenants as both being iterations of the one covenant of grace. Jeremiah 31 posits discontinuity, it is true, but the discontinuity stated there is NOT between Abrahamic and new, but between Mosaic and new. Baptists tend to interpret Jeremiah 31 as positing complete discontinuity between new and ALL OT covenants, but this is reading into the text something that is most definitely not there. 

The cash value of all this in terms of the main debate is that, if the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace (and I would argue that Romans 4 and Galatians 3 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt), then the signs, though different, work in similar ways as well. And this eventually results in the stunning realization that children, therefore, are seen in the same way in the new covenant as in the Abrahamic. And if they are seen in the same way, then they should have the sign.

Reactions: Like 12 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> What it appears to me that you're missing is that I was describing the OT covenants as operating the same way as the new covenant. You keep talking about shadow and type in relation to the OT, and yes, paedos believe that the OT consists of many types and shadows. What you don't seem to realize is that type and shadow _still have the substance_ of the covenant of grace, which is salvation. The covenants' essence is still salvation in the OT. You put much too much discontinuity between type and anti-type.
> 
> Read Romans 4 once again, very carefully, and you will notice that the SIGN of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision) points to JUSTIFICATION, which is EXACTLY the SAME justification as believers have today. See especially Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." The sign is an essential part of the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, what it points to is ALSO an essential part of the Abrahamic covenant. The thing it pointed to was the righteousness of Christ, and salvation by having that faith in the Savior. Romans 4 is completely inexplicable in your paradigm, wherein salvation and covenant are completely divorced from each other in the OT. You are also completely divorcing sign from thing signified. In order for your position to work, the sign of circumcision has to be part of the Abrahamic covenant, whereas the righteousness of which circumcision is the sign is NOT part of the Abrahamic covenant. How in the world can you posit such a divorce between sign and thing signified as to claim the sign is covenantal, yet the thing it points to is not? This is, quite frankly, absurd. You have not answered my exegesis of relevant passages in comment 263, either.
> 
> In order for the credo position to work as you have articulated it, you have to strip away the spiritual, salvific aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and argue that there weren't any saving aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, that it was all physical and related to the land. But as soon as you see what Romans 4 really says, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, and you start to see that the Abrahamic covenant is, in fact, THE SAME covenant as the new covenant of today in its substance. The signs of it have changed, but NOT the substance. Circumcision and baptism both point to the blood of Christ cleansing sinners of their sin. Baptism is bloodless because the blood has been finally spilt.
> 
> As to the appearance of my arguing for your position, it is only appearance, because what I am contending for is the continuity of substance between Abrahamic and new covenants as both being iterations of the one covenant of grace. Jeremiah 31 posits discontinuity, it is true, but the discontinuity stated there is NOT between Abrahamic and new, but between Mosaic and new. Baptists tend to interpret Jeremiah 31 as positing complete discontinuity between new and ALL OT covenants, but this is reading into the text something that is most definitely not there.
> 
> The cash value of all this in terms of the main debate is that, if the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace (and I would argue that Romans 4 and Galatians 3 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt), then the signs, though different, work in similar ways as well. And this eventually results in the stunning realization that children, therefore, are seen in the same way in the new covenant as in the Abrahamic. And if they are seen in the same way, then they should have the sign.


You certainly are mighty to destroy straw men! I congratulate you.
Now, I think we're very close in our understanding of Romans 4, Galatians 3, and how Abraham was saved. To argue about whether there were saving aspects in the OT covenants is academic, since we agree that salvation was always of grace, and always God's work. People in those times were actually and truly saved when they believed. I think we're both agreed, friend!
What we disagree on is far simpler--it's whether one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant, which aspect I regard as a shadow, has carried over in the same way. It's truly a small divergence, although with some big consequences, as we've seen. To say that I strip away anything spiritual from the Abrahamic covenant is, again, a straw man--see the recent thread on whether 1689 Federalism is novel for my views on that--I in fact keep all the spiritual aspects, and strip away the physical--the ones that were only for the times of type and shadow.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> The promise of being a spiritual people by faith with a great inheritance of a heavenly country, how does that 'hinder the tree'?
> 
> The promise of a forever king to reign over all peoples and nations, how does that 'hinder the tree'?
> 
> The promise of being God's treasured possession, a royal priesthood and a holy people, how does that 'hinder the tree'?


None of those hinder the tree--but the physical aspects, the types and the shadows, do. Baptists see two classes of people: the saved and the lost. All are ordinarily born lost. There is no in-between category of people who are, well, holy because their parents were, but that doesn't mean saved, but we think they are until they fall away, but they are set aside somehow even though not really salvifically in any guaranteed way...........


----------



## Romans678

So help me understand the aspect of substance vs administration. The spiritual aspect of the covenant is the "substance" and the physical aspect is the "administration"? Kinda like using different cups to drink of the same drink? Sorry for the weak example of cups LOL. I'm just trying to get a visible picture of the concept.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## pgwolv

greenbaggins said:


> The cash value of all this in terms of the main debate is that, if the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace (and I would argue that Romans 4 and Galatians 3 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt), then the signs, though different, work in similar ways as well. And this eventually results in the stunning realization that children, therefore, are seen in the same way in the new covenant as in the Abrahamic. And if they are seen in the same way, then they should have the sign.


Thank you for your great explanations of the paedo view. I am learning a lot. This is probably a trivial question, but, in your view, why was the sign in the OT one that could only be applied to male individuals, and why is the sign now applied to both male and female?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> None of those hinder the tree--but the physical aspects, the types and the shadows, do. Baptists see two classes of people: the saved and the lost. All are ordinarily born lost. There is no in-between category of people who are, well, holy because their parents were, but that doesn't mean saved, but we think they are until they fall away, but they are set aside somehow even though not really salvifically in any guaranteed way...........



Good morning brother. Help me understand your perspective. When you say "lost" do you mean without a conversion experience or something different? Is it lost as in "not regenerated"? After all we are saved before the foundation of the world being predestined to obtain an inheritance in Christ. Does that mean there are a lot of predestined people in Christ's flock not being baptised? Are there myriads of little sheep not being included in the fold because we just "aren't sure"? 

I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking at you brother, but my heart not in that place. These questions of mine come from a sincere inquiry. Not a "gotcha" scenario or anything. You have been faithful in answering my questions and in giving great explanations of your positions. You are helping me sharpen my convictions and gain a deeper insight on what the scriptures teach. For this I thank you. God bless.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## pgwolv

greenbaggins said:


> The cash value of all this in terms of the main debate is that, if the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace (and I would argue that Romans 4 and Galatians 3 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt), then the signs, though different, work in similar ways as well. And this eventually results in the stunning realization that children, therefore, are seen in the same way in the new covenant as in the Abrahamic. And if they are seen in the same way, then they should have the sign.





pgwolv said:


> Thank you for your great explanations of the paedo view. I am learning a lot. This is probably a trivial question, but, in your view, why was the sign in the OT one that could only be applied to male individuals, and why is the sign now applied to both male and female?



I think I got my answer for the paedo view from Steve's comment (#177), particularly the following:


Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is clear to us both, I believe, that the very crux of our difference concerns the nature of the Covenant of Grace (CoG), and of the New Covenant. You likely are familiar with the Reformed maxim that the CoG continues from the OT through to the NT, although upon the advent of Christ and the expansion of the church to include the Gentiles the administration of the one covenant changes so as to include non-Jews and women, thus circumcision is done away with as the covenant sign is replaced by the non-bloody sign and seal of water. It is still the same covenant. But women can now bear the sign without having to be under the authority of a father, husband, or elder brother – who may eject them from their family for faith in the Messiah. Now they are in Christ, and under His authority, their elder brother, and Lord.
> 
> As for the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant – where the CoG is brought into a distinct and exclusive family line – it is written of me (and of all of us who believe in Christ), “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The command to Abraham to put the sign of the Covenant on his male children has not been rescinded in the New Covenant, but expanded to include females, as the authority structure of families, and the assemblies of God’s people were changed and expanded. That command is still in force. Our children are to bear the sign of the covenant. The _promise_ is that God will be our God, and we shall be His people.


I guess the part which seems least convincing to me is "That command is still in force." I'm definitely going to make more of a study of Rom 4 and Gal 3 with regard to the relationship between circumcision and baptism. You said that "the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace"; however, how do you determine that girls should also be baptised? Does "woman" imply "girl also"?


----------



## pgwolv

Another question related to circumcision vs. baptism: with baptism, there are many indications of "repent, believe, and be baptised." What did gentiles have to do to become circumcised before the New Covenant was revealed?


----------



## Taylor

pgwolv said:


> Another question related to circumcision vs. baptism: with baptism, there are many indications of "repent, believe, and be baptised." What did gentiles have to do to become circumcised before the New Covenant was revealed?


Well, since becoming circumcised meant leaving one's old life and entering into covenant life with God, repentance is necessary by definition. And since they were willingly entering into a covenant relationship with God, belief is also necessary by definition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv

Taylor said:


> Well, since becoming circumcised meant leaving one's old life and entering into covenant life with God, repentance is necessary by definition. And since they were willingly entering into a covenant relationship with God, belief is also necessary by definition.


Further, if covenantal children under the Old Covenant apostasised, did that mean they "broke" the Old Covenant with God? Can the same be said for an apostasising New Covenant child?

EDIT: I think what I am looking for is a systematic comparison of circumcision and baptism. If anyone can point me to a relevant source, that would be great. I really want to understand these two signs in relation to Covenant Theology.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello PG,

There is still such a thing in the New Covenant as a covenant-breaker (Rom 1:31 AV, Geneva), as one who has been – outwardly – in the covenant community of the CoG, who despised the grace of God and loved the world. This applied in the OT in exactly the same manner. They were not elect, yet bore the sign. Heb 6:4,5,6 and following shows the same dynamic:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.​
In Col 2:11,12,13, we read,

In whom [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by* the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism*, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses...[emphasis added]​
There is a direct correspondence between the signs of circumcision and baptism, which were differing administrative signs of the exact same substance or essence of the Covenant of Grace in differing dispensations.

Deut 30:6 shows the same inward activity of God before baptism was instituted:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.​
For the sake of the elect, all were circumcised, even though not all were elect.

"That command [which] is still in force" I mentioned is simply the LORD requiring our infants to bear the sign of the covenant – even though not all are elect – for the sake of the elect whom the LORD will regenerate at some point in their life.


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> You certainly are mighty to destroy straw men! I congratulate you.
> Now, I think we're very close in our understanding of Romans 4, Galatians 3, and how Abraham was saved. To argue about whether there were saving aspects in the OT covenants is academic, since we agree that salvation was always of grace, and always God's work. People in those times were actually and truly saved when they believed. I think we're both agreed, friend!
> What we disagree on is far simpler--it's whether one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant, which aspect I regard as a shadow, has carried over in the same way. It's truly a small divergence, although with some big consequences, as we've seen. To say that I strip away anything spiritual from the Abrahamic covenant is, again, a straw man--see the recent thread on whether 1689 Federalism is novel for my views on that--I in fact keep all the spiritual aspects, and strip away the physical--the ones that were only for the times of type and shadow.


Ben, since you divorce salvation from covenant in the OT, that is why I said you have stripped away everything spiritual from the Abrahamic. Take away salvation from the covenant, and you have taken away everything spiritually important from the covenant. Salvation has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant in your constructions. No strawman there. If all you can do is accuse me of strawman, and then say that the discussion about saving aspects of the Abrahamic covenant is merely academic (which it most certainly is not, as it gets at the all-important (for this discussion) aspect of continuity between Abrahamic and new covenants!), I must conclude you have no answers for my arguments. You have not addressed a single substantive argument from my last post. 


pgwolv said:


> Thank you for your great explanations of the paedo view. I am learning a lot. This is probably a trivial question, but, in your view, why was the sign in the OT one that could only be applied to male individuals, and why is the sign now applied to both male and female?


Circumcision can only be applied to males because of anatomical reasons (the modern Arab practice of circumcising females being only a mutilation). Females were included in the OT covenants under male headship. While females are still under male headship (unless they are the sole head of their own household), their right to the covenant sign is implied in Jesus' reception of all babies in Matthew 19 (a very powerful verse in support of infant baptism, incidentally: if the kingdom belongs to such as these, then why not the sign?), as well as 1 Corinthians 7 where the children (not just baby boys) are positionally holy due to having at least one believing parent.


pgwolv said:


> I think I got my answer for the paedo view from Steve's comment (#177), particularly the following:
> 
> I guess the part which seems least convincing to me is "That command is still in force." I'm definitely going to make more of a study of Rom 4 and Gal 3 with regard to the relationship between circumcision and baptism. You said that "the new covenant are simply iterations of the SAME covenant of grace"; however, how do you determine that girls should also be baptised? Does "woman" imply "girl also"?


See above.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I love this thread. There is a a lot of good back and forth without the heat. You guys Rock.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Good morning brother. Help me understand your perspective. When you say "lost" do you mean without a conversion experience or something different? Is it lost as in "not regenerated"? After all we are saved before the foundation of the world being predestined to obtain an inheritance in Christ. Does that mean there are a lot of predestined people in Christ's flock not being baptised? Are there myriads of little sheep not being included in the fold because we just "aren't sure"?
> 
> I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking at you brother, but my heart not in that place. These questions of mine come from a sincere inquiry. Not a "gotcha" scenario or anything. You have been faithful in answering my questions and in giving great explanations of your positions. You are helping me sharpen my convictions and gain a deeper insight on what the scriptures teach. For this I thank you. God bless.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Your theology of salvation is faulty. We are not saved before the foundation of the world, as you say: we are sinners by nature, dead in trespasses and sins. God must regenerate us in time--whether He's pleased to do that from the womb, as He certainly is able, or to call us later by the ordinary means of the Word preached. All people who are predestinated are still sinners at conception--lost, dead in sin, whatever you want to call it--that is the human baseline. _When_ God is pleased to save each one is in His hands: _when_ we baptize those who make a credible profession, as the Scripture requires, is in ours: the ministers must judge, according to the light they have, whether a person's profession is credible.
What does it matter if a child saved in infancy does not get baptized till later? What loss does he/she suffer? Failure to baptize is no hindrance to grace. The saved person is still most surely saved, whether a sign is applied, misapplied, misunderstood, or misused.


----------



## Ben Zartman

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I love this thread. There is a a lot of good back and forth without the heat. You guys Rock.


And this thread loves you.


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, since you divorce salvation from covenant in the OT, that is why I said you have stripped away everything spiritual from the Abrahamic. Take away salvation from the covenant, and you have taken away everything spiritually important from the covenant. Salvation has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant in your constructions. No strawman there. If all you can do is accuse me of strawman, and then say that the discussion about saving aspects of the Abrahamic covenant is merely academic (which it most certainly is not, as it gets at the all-important (for this discussion) aspect of continuity between Abrahamic and new covenants!), I must conclude you have no answers for my arguments. You have not addressed a single substantive argument from my last post.
> 
> Circumcision can only be applied to males because of anatomical reasons (the modern Arab practice of circumcising females being only a mutilation). Females were included in the OT covenants under male headship. While females are still under male headship (unless they are the sole head of their own household), their right to the covenant sign is implied in Jesus' reception of all babies in Matthew 19 (a very powerful verse in support of infant baptism, incidentally: if the kingdom belongs to such as these, then why not the sign?), as well as 1 Corinthians 7 where the children (not just baby boys) are positionally holy due to having at least one believing parent.
> 
> See above.


We have now reached the point in the argument where I repeatedly say that I do not separate salvation from the OT covenants, and you say, "yes, you do" and I say "no, I don't" and we keep it going forever. We've both seen this movie, Lane. Let's be content that we've each expressed our view as best we can and recognize that we won't see eye to eye until we get to glory. I appreciate the time you've taken to respond and to clarify; I believe I have answered the objections--if not in every whit and detail, certainly in overview enough that the Baptist position is clearly seen (perhaps I flatter myself on that last point--at least I know I've expressed things as clearly as I am able), and leave it here for now. I would rather be your friend than prove you wrong, and I will be content to hear whatever you may further say and leave it there.
Grace and peace to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

First you say these things: 


Ben Zartman said:


> During OT times, family inclusion in a covenant that did not guarantee salvation





Ben Zartman said:


> I see salvation in the OT as being, as it is now, by union with Christ, not by any external administration of a covenant. And perhaps you agree so far. But I regard those OT covenants as shadows of the New Covenant, with rudiments that were abrogated when once the substance they were prefiguring came along. The old covenant had a membership--everyone born physically to covenant parents, and strangers who would take the sign and keep the laws. But not everyone was saved.





Ben Zartman said:


> The Abrahamic covenant, like the others after it, was therefore painting a picture. There was an external administration that typified an internal reality. The things from which the pictures were made had no power to save:





Ben Zartman said:


> I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants.



Now you say this: 


Ben Zartman said:


> I do not separate salvation from the OT covenants


Not only do you see all these things as compatible, but you are now saying that you have _never _separated salvation from the OT covenants, and are trying to imply that I have been obtuse in not recognizing this "fact." In particular, the last quote of the first grouping "I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants" is hardly compatible with the statement "I do not separate salvation from the OT covenants." Either you have changed your position, or you have a very inconsistent view of OT covenants. At any rate, your last post gave me whiplash. If you wish to leave it here, that's fine, but I think it will be clear to most readers that you have contradicted yourself. At any rate, I can certainly be forgiven for thinking that you have separated salvation from the Abrahamic covenant, based on your earlier quotations, especially "I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants," which says EXACTLY what I have been thinking you were saying! If that last quotation from the first grouping does not separate salvation from the Abrahamic covenant, then I am at a complete loss as to how it could be more clearly stated. 

From where I stand, you have answered almost nothing of the substance of my arguments. To be specific: you have not answered my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 19, Jeremiah 31, Romans 4, Galatians 3. You have not answered the theological arguments about both sign and thing signified belonging to the Abrahamic covenant. You have not answered my argument about apostasy in Hebrews 6. Your method of argumentation is to look for a perceived weakness and attack that. My method is to answer your strongest arguments. I search them out. I know that if I really have the truth, it will withstand the best arguments that can be leveled against it. If I don't have the truth, then I will be forced to attack the weakness of the opposing position. Which method is more convincing I will leave to the readers of the PB to decide.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> First you say these things:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say this:
> 
> Not only do you see all these things as compatible, but you are now saying that you have _never _separated salvation from the OT covenants, and are trying to imply that I have been obtuse in not recognizing this "fact." In particular, the last quote of the first grouping "I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants" is hardly compatible with the statement "I do not separate salvation from the OT covenants." Either you have changed your position, or you have a very inconsistent view of OT covenants. At any rate, your last post gave me whiplash. If you wish to leave it here, that's fine, but I think it will be clear to most readers that you have contradicted yourself. At any rate, I can certainly be forgiven for thinking that you have separated salvation from the Abrahamic covenant, based on your earlier quotations, especially "I deny that salvation was conferred by the OT covenants," which says EXACTLY what I have been thinking you were saying! If that last quotation from the first grouping does not separate salvation from the Abrahamic covenant, then I am at a complete loss as to how it could be more clearly stated.
> 
> From where I stand, you have answered almost nothing of the substance of my arguments. To be specific: you have not answered my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 19, Jeremiah 31, Romans 4, Galatians 3. You have not answered the theological arguments about both sign and thing signified belonging to the Abrahamic covenant. You have not answered my argument about apostasy in Hebrews 6. Your method of argumentation is to look for a perceived weakness and attack that. My method is to answer your strongest arguments. I search them out. I know that if I really have the truth, it will withstand the best arguments that can be leveled against it. If I don't have the truth, then I will be forced to attack the weakness of the opposing position. Which method is more convincing I will leave to the readers of the PB to decide.


I see your confusion, and apologize for being unable to express myself understandably. If I may briefly summarize: I don't believe that the OT covenants conferred salvation in their administration--in other words, simply being in the Mosaic covenant did not make you regenerate. God saved people who were in those covenants, when they believed what those administrations, what those types and shadows, were signifying. So being a covenant member then did not guarantee salvation, or, you could say that covenant membership did not require salvation.
But baptists believe that covenant membership now DOES require salvation. Not because the promises to Abraham are abrogated, since we believe they are being fulfilled now, but because that administration has given way to what it was pointing to all along.
Does that seem contradictory? To my mind it is not.
Sorry to speak again, but you do seem to want an answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ben Zartman said:


> But baptists believe that covenant membership now DOES require salvation. Not because the promises to Abraham are abrogated, since we believe they are being fulfilled now, but because that administration has given way to what it was pointing to all along.



Do you identify the administration of the New Covenant with its substance?


----------



## greenbaggins

So, Ben, what I hear you saying is that the OT covenants were only administration, only types, only shadows, that pointed to something beyond themselves. If OT saints had salvation, they had what the administration-shadow-type-OT covenant pointed to, which was not part of the covenant itself. In paedo categories, the OT covenants were only administrations, the NT covenant is only essence. The paedo position is that both OT and NT covenants have both administration and essence. In the paedo viewpoint, Romans 4 proves the substance of salvation was part of the Abrahamic (thus proving that the Abrahamic had both the sign and that to which the sign pointed), and Hebrews 6 proves that there is an administration from which people can fall away in the NT covenant (thus proving that there is something more besides just the essence in the new covenant). If you don't believe the NT covenant has an administration, then from what does a person fall away in Hebrews 6?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Imputatio

What a thread this has turned out to be. I feel like a rookie who goes all the way to the championship in his first year. 

My next 15 threads will be flops, and I’ll look back on this first one and how I thought it would always be this way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

RamistThomist said:


> Do you identify the administration of the New Covenant with its substance?


I would have to know what you mean by "substance." I have found that the words "essence" and "substance" are used often, and suspect that people mean different things by them. Just like "Covenant of Grace" means different things to different groups.
But the point is not whether the New Covenant has an external, visible, fallible administration just like the Old ones did, and because of that we should apply the sign of it in the same way--the point is that no matter what the form of the administration, past, present, and future, the things done with men's hands never confer salvation--it is God's internal work, and always has been. In the OT, God says, "put the sign on every male born or joined." In the NT, God says, "Put the sign on every person born again." Ours is only to obey.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> But baptists believe that covenant membership now DOES require salvation. Not because the promises to Abraham are abrogated, since we believe they are being fulfilled now, but because that administration has given way to what it was pointing to all along.


Is this view of the covenants common among Reformed Baptists? Where (in the LBCF, for instance) is this most plainly laid out?


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> In the NT, God says, "Put the sign on every person born again."


If I may, what passage are you referring to here?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> So, Ben, what I hear you saying is that the OT covenants were only administration, only types, only shadows, that pointed to something beyond themselves. If OT saints had salvation, they had what the administration-shadow-type-OT covenant pointed to, which was not part of the covenant itself. In paedo categories, the OT covenants were only administrations, the NT covenant is only essence. The paedo position is that both OT and NT covenants have both administration and essence. In the paedo viewpoint, Romans 4 proves the substance of salvation was part of the Abrahamic (thus proving that the Abrahamic had both the sign and that to which the sign pointed), and Hebrews 6 proves that there is an administration from which people can fall away in the NT covenant (thus proving that there is something more besides just the essence in the new covenant). If you don't believe the NT covenant has an administration, then from what does a person fall away in Hebrews 6?


I believe that OT saints had the same salvation we do--call it essence or substance or whatever you like. Abraham is the father of the faithful because he believed. Sure, Abraham had both the sign and the thing signified, but many did not. There was a church in infancy, learning through types what it would be like when it was all grown up. Once it did, the training wheels came off and it was free to speed along in it's full glory. The circumcision of every male was training wheels, looking toward the day when automatic inclusion without salvific union would be replaced by salvific union before inclusion.
Hebrews 6 speaks of false professors, like Simon the Magician, who profess Christ, who possibly grow up being taken to church, seeing how the Spirit works in others, and ultimately rejecting Christ. They were never saved, and baptists believe it's a stretch to say that because temporary hangers-on can fall away, we should include infants among their ranks.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> Is this view of the covenants common among Reformed Baptists? Where (in the LBCF, for instance) is this most plainly laid out?


LBCF 29 is a good place to start


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> If I may, what passage are you referring to here?


The Eunuch comes first to mind. He asks what prevents his baptism, and Philip says nothing, if you believe in Jesus.
Then we see, "Repent and be baptized every one of you..."
And, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."
Baptism always follows repentance in the NT.


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> The circumcision of every male was training wheels, looking toward the day when automatic inclusion without salvific union would be replaced by salvific union before inclusion.


Today is still not that day. This may be evidence of the common charge of over-realized ecclesiology. This reality you describe as “salvific union before inclusion” is only true of heaven.

I think Lane was exposing that in your Post # 288 you seem to conflate the idea of the visible church and the invisible church. You seem to diminish that outward administration does exist in the NT. But then you seperate visible/invisible and highlight administration to interpret Hebrews 6 in Post # 295. This at best seems a little inconsistent.

I think it obvious when you visit any Church that children are indeed part of the visible gathering. I have never attended a Baptist church (SBC or Reformed) that treated their children as unrepentant Pagans. From your view, if a child has not made a credible profession they are in rebellion. But often kids are not only present, they even can be seen participating (singing, praying, listening, learning). While I disagree with the practice, some even let them sing in front of the congregation or help pass the offering plate. In my experience, Baptist seem to withhold baptism to later ages NOT because they want to withold baptism (because even my 4 year old confesses faith in Christ and knows herself to be a sinner), but rather withold baptism because said child might not be ready for the Lord’s Supper. However this seems to lead to the reformed (including Presbyterian) distinction between entry (baptism) and accessing maturity (Lord’s Supper). The Baptist conflation of the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) seems like an unbiblical conflation. This same mistake is also made by Federal Vision and Doug Wilson as they conflate the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) and fail to see the distinction between visible entry sign/maturity sign. They also say, if a subject is ready for one, then they are ready for the other. Yes your subjects are not infants, but it is the same issue with not seeing this distinction between baptism and the table.

NT outward inclusion/entry still seems to be defined as household administration. Granted in the OT the household administration of circumcision was through male children and male strangers, BUT the women were still included in the visible covenant community. The household concept seems to still be upheld and not struck down as some shadow in the NT. Think of the NT household baptisms, Christ’s words to children, the faith of a parent sanctifying an unbelieving spouse and making their children holy. The Great Commission also hints to the order in that we Baptize and then we teach in order to make a disciple. Generally, IF parents do their job (as faith should produce), most kids will make profession at a very young age. IF they walk away forever, then that is to their judgment (Hebrews 6 ). Baptism is for entry into the visible church and yes is still tied to faith, household faith. The table is to be fenced for those in the visible church exhibiting maturity and the ability to deeply discern their walk with Christ and any malice they might have towards fellow believers. The elect partaking unto spiritual blessing while the reprobate in sheep’s clothing partake unto judgment and condemnation.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Romans678

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> What a thread this has turned out to be. I feel like a rookie who goes all the way to the championship in his first year.
> 
> My next 15 threads will be flops, and I’ll look back on this first one and how I thought it would always be this way.


Welcome to the Board [emoji846][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> LBCF 29 is a good place to start


I do not see the LCBF saying that “inclusion in the covenant requires salvation.” It states, rather, that baptism properly follows, and is admininstered on the basis of, a _profession_ of repentance and faith. Am I missing something here? Forgive me; I am not conversant in Reformed Baptist doctrine.

I am struggling to make sense of the notion that in order to be baptized, that is, in order to receive the sign of the covenant, one must be saved. You mentioned Simon Magus, who was baptized on the basis of a profession. Was he in the covenant, or outside it?



Ben Zartman said:


> The Eunuch comes first to mind. He asks what prevents his baptism, and Philip says nothing, if you believe in Jesus.
> Then we see, "Repent and be baptized every one of you..."
> And, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."
> Baptism always follows repentance in the NT.


I see. I admit I was hoping from some more serious exegetical considerations than this. For the sake of maintaining this thread’s focus, I’ll leave this matter aside. It seems to me, though, that there are some foundational assumptions in the background of some of your replies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Smeagol said:


> Today is still not that day. This may be evidence of the common charge of over-realized ecclesiology. This reality you describe as “salvific union before inclusion” is only true of heaven.
> 
> I think Lane was exposing that in your Post # 288 you seem to conflate the idea of the visible church and the invisible church. You seem to diminish that outward administration does exist in the NT. But then you seperate visible/invisible and highlight administration to interpret Hebrews 6 in Post # 295. This at best seems a little inconsistent.
> 
> I think it obvious when you visit any Church that children are indeed part of the visible gathering. I have never attended a Baptist church (SBC or Reformed) that treated their children as unrepentant Pagans. From your view, if a child has not made a credible profession they are in rebellion. But often kids are not only present, they even can be seen participating (singing, praying, listening, learning). While I disagree with the practice, some even let them sing in front of the congregation or help pass the offering plate. In my experience, Baptist seem to withhold baptism to later ages NOT because they want to withold baptism (because even my 4 year old confesses faith in Christ and knows herself to be a sinner), but rather withold baptism because said child might not be ready for the Lord’s Supper. However this seems to lead to the reformed (including Presbyterian) distinction between entry (baptism) and accessing maturity (Lord’s Supper). The Baptist conflation of the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) seems like an unbiblical conflation. This same mistake is also made by Federal Vision and Doug Wilson as they conflate the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) and fail to see the distinction between visible entry sign/maturity sign. They also say, if a subject is ready for one, then they are ready for the other. Yes your subjects are not infants, but it is the same issue with not seeing this distinction between baptism and the table.
> 
> NT outward inclusion/entry still seems to be defined as household administration. Granted in the OT the household administration of circumcision was through male children and male strangers, BUT the women were still included in the visible covenant community. The household concept seems to still be upheld and not struck down as some shadow in the NT. Think of the NT household baptisms, Christ’s words to children, the faith of a parent sanctifying an unbelieving spouse and making their children holy. The Great Commission also hints to the order in that we Baptize and then we teach in order to make a disciple. Generally, IF parents do their job (as faith should produce), most kids will make profession at a very young age. IF they walk away forever, then that is to their judgment (Hebrews 6 ). Baptism is for entry into the visible church and yes is still tied to faith, household faith. The table is to be fenced for those in the visible church exhibiting maturity and the ability to deeply discern their walk with Christ and any malice they might have towards fellow believers. The elect partaking unto spiritual blessing while the reprobate in sheep’s clothing partake unto judgment and condemnation.


If you treat unrepentant pagans with anything other than charity and mercy, perhaps that's one of the roots of your problem. I regard my children as unsaved--certainly, in rebellion against God by nature: "the carnal mind is enmity against God"--until they make a credible profession, but I treat them as people made in God's image who are to be treated lovingly and kindly and brought under the preaching of the word. Moreover, I have the responsibility to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and there's no reason they have to be church members to do that.

You mistake baptist polity in saying that we don't baptize until we think they're ready for the Supper. Baloney. If a church baptizes a 9-year-old, they are admitted to the supper, because the Supper is for professing believers. The metric we seek is not an age, but an ability to credibly profess faith; the grace to wait on the church's decision to accept that profession as credible will go far toward confirming it.

Your last paragraph is a re-hash of things we've been over time and time again. The big divide between baptists and presbyterians is partly this household thing--the notion that one person's belief can be counted as that of others. I don't think we need to go over it yet again.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart

@Ben Zartman,

In Post #300 I asked a question to which I would appreciate a reply:

_Simon Magus was baptized on the basis of a(n apparently credible) profession. Was he in the covenant or outside it?_


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> If you treat unrepentant pagans with anything other than charity and mercy, perhaps that's one of the roots of your problem. I regard my children as unsaved--certainly, in rebellion against God by nature: "the carnal mind is enmity against God"--until they make a credible profession, but I treat them as people made in God's image who are to be treated lovingly and kindly and brought under the preaching of the word. Moreover, I have the responsibility to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and there's no reason they have to be church members to do that.
> 
> You mistake baptist polity in saying that we don't baptize until we think they're ready for the Supper. Baloney. If a church baptizes a 9-year-old, they are admitted to the supper, because the Supper is for professing believers. The metric we seek is not an age, but an ability to credibly profess faith; the grace to wait on the church's decision to accept that profession as credible will go far toward confirming it.
> 
> Your last paragraph is a re-hash of things we've been over time and time again. The big divide between baptists and presbyterians is partly this household thing--the notion that one person's belief can be counted as that of others. I don't think we need to go over it yet again.


Ben,

I appreciate you getting back with me. I was raised a Baptist from birth and did not make the move until around 25 years of age. I say that just to give some backdrop to my knowledge of how things tend to go in a stereotypical Baptist setting (SBC strain & Calvinistic strain). I would still have concerns with your reasoning here, as I know you do with mine, but I will leave that be.

1). However, I don’t think you addressed my charge of an over realized-ecclesiology regarding your remark that now we have “salvific union before inclusion”. Again, this can only be true in heaven.

2). Nor did you address the this portion:


> I think Lane was exposing that in your Post # 288 you seem to conflate the idea of the visible church and the invisible church. You seem to diminish that outward administration does exist in the NT. But then you seperate visible/invisible and highlight administration to interpret Hebrews 6 in Post # 295. This at best seems a little inconsistent.



3. Lastly, do you have any thoughts/concerns regarding conflating the requirements for baptism/Lord’s supper? Do you believe the Bible conflates the 2 with regard to the *proper Recipients*? If my 5 year old daughter confesses faith in Christ, understands herself to be a sinner in need of the perfect work of Christ should she be baptized? Admitted to the super?

I think your forced to say either “no to both” OR “yes to both”, since Baptist interlock the 2 ….right?

I certainly could have missed a previous answer, but I think I have read all 300 post as best I can. If I did please forgive me.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I just wanted to pop in again with a few thoughts. Circumcision of male infants wasn’t done of course upon the infant’s profession of faith, but was the sign placed upon him, by command of God, of God’s covenant and promise to be God to his people. It was a sign of belonging and inclusion in that covenant and promise. It meant something.

So that paedobaptists believe that baptism by water is a gracious expansion of that wonderful earlier sign, which once was only for their sons, of covenant and promise. It now includes all, both male and female, Jew and Greek. Like circumcision, baptism is for the children of parents who are visibly members and partakers in God’s covenant promises. Their children automatically belong, as did the children in the under-age church; but as God commanded the visible sign on the children then, represented by the male children, paedobaptism understands the command now to place the visible sign on all its children, with its greater blessing in being extended to both male and female.

So— whether baptized or not, God sees the children of faithful members in the visible church as included in those certain household and covenant promises. But— this brings me back to the OP and questions about what difference the visible sign and it’s practical outworkings may make.

I’ve observed what I think are practical outcomes of this sign of inclusion (and all it represents) being placed on children in the church. As these children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with all that entails, I think that such a child’s knowledge that he or she received this public sign of inclusion, by command of God, enveloped in the warmth and acceptance of the nurturing bosom of the church, in which he or she is a true member, seems huge in their life. There is, I observe, a sense of belonging and responsibility as they grow, recognized as fellow members along with their parents and the other adults and children— true and welcome citizens and fellow heirs— in this godly society. Already having that comfort, there seems to be a sense of God’s love for them in placing them in such a home, in such a church, having been born by his sovereign will into this citizenship, again into this pleasant society and family. A sense of privilege, not in a boastful way, but in a grateful way— which seems to lead to an early sense of duty, and recognition of the need to prepare for future duties as they grow in their citizenship. I can’t think that all this wouldn’t make a subtle difference in _well-being_ in their station as children in the godly home and in the church. (Forgive all my repetitions!)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D.

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ve observed what I think are practical outcomes of this sign of inclusion (and all it represents) being placed on children in the church. As these children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with all that entails, I think that such a child’s knowledge that he or she received this public sign of inclusion, by command of God, enveloped in the warmth and acceptance of the nurturing bosom of the church, in which he or she is a true member, seems huge in their life. There is, I observe, a sense of belonging and responsibility as they grow, recognized as fellow members along with their parents and the other adults and children— true and welcome citizens and fellow heirs— in this godly society. Already having that comfort, there seems to be a sense of God’s love for them in placing them in such a home, in such a church, having been born by his sovereign will into this citizenship, again into this pleasant society and family. A sense of privilege, not in a boastful way, but in a grateful way— which seems to lead to an early sense of duty, and recognition of the need to prepare for future duties as they grow in their citizenship. I can’t think that all this wouldn’t make a subtle difference in _well-being_ in their station as children in the godly home and in the church. (Forgive all my repetitions!)



I know we all agree that ultimately election is not affected by baptism, and I believe that's an important place to begin. 

My wife and I have been members of both credo and peado churches over extended periods of times, and in terms of the spirtual outlook or well-being of one's children it is pretty obvious to me such is most impacted by the particular actions and dilegence of the parents. 

I've seen credos who I think are a bit too intense or even harsh in driving home the point that their child is by nature "lost" and needs to repent in order to be saved. They almost discourage their children from becoming baptized, somehow fearing it might be "too soon". 

On the other hand I've seen paedos who seem to "rest" in the thought that their child is baptized, then neglecting to some extent the fact that repentance is an integral step in the practical process of salvation. (This indeed seems to be much more of a chronic problem in non-Reformed paedo churches.) 

Of course neither extreme is necessary, nor, in my expereince, even the norm among solid evangelical and Reformed churches. My observation has been that there is relative parity in credo and paedo parents' approach to effectively discipling their children - much intercessory prayer, godly parental love, dilegently teaching the truths - even the hard truths - of the Bible, and patiently encouraging their children's personal establishment in the faith once delivered.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Romans678

There is no kingdom without the church. There is no church without members.
There is no member without family.
There is no family without children.

I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership. Nations would topple left and right. Kindoms would crumble under the weight of other more poplulous realms vying for their territory. A kingdom with no offspring is no kingdom at all.

No children, no kingdom.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Romans678 said:


> I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership. Nations would topple left and right. Kindoms would crumble under the weight of other more poplulous realms vying for their territory. A kingdom with no offspring is no kingdom at all.
> 
> No children, no kingdom.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.


A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question (or discussion).

For instance, if I get caught committing a crime red-handed and say "what about rac1sm, that is worse than what I did", that would be considered a red herring.

In what way did my comment detract or mislead from the OP of this thread? In what way is my comment irrelevant to OP?


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Romans678 said:


> A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question (or discussion).
> 
> For instance, if I get caught committing a crime red-handed and say "what about rac1sm, that is worse than what I did", that would be considered a red herring.
> 
> In what way did my comment detract or mislead from the OP of this thread? In what way is my comment irrelevant to OP?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



"I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"

This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"
> 
> This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.


I think he was arguing from the lesser to the greater.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"
> 
> This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.


Yes, it is. Christ is King, ruler over all nations. All of creation cries out the to the glory of the Lord. There is no-thing outside of God's realm of influence. He is Sovereign over all and all belongs to Him.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 19:1 ESV

Not just the heavens, but ALL of creation declares the glory of our God. Whether it be fathers to their children, husband's to their wives, masters to slaves, subjects to kings, etc. all earthly creatures and kingdoms are demonstrative of the character of God to some degree. I am not saying creation IS God, but I am saying our Lord desires to be known and His glory to be shown by his handiwork.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Eyedoc84 said:


> I think he was arguing from the lesser to the greater.


This is exactly what I was saying. Christ used many parables to demonstrate the same principle. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D.

Romans678 said:


> Christ used many parables to demonstrate the same principle.


There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?


The principle I was referring to is comparing lessor to greater. As to the topic of rearing children, I cannot recall a parable at the moment. How that qualifies as a red herring is beyond my understanding. I said what I said to help strengthen the argument I have been presenting since the beginning of this thread. 

I believe what I said is pretty cut and dry. You guys know exactly what I am talking about here. I used an example of creation to describe something spiritual. Forgive me for my shortness, but I am getting ready for work. I shall return later in the day. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Phil D. said:


> There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?


Quick break.

Here are a few that might be related to child rearing and the Covenant. God bless!

The Sower - Matthew 13:1-23

The Weeds Among the Wheat - Matthew 13:24-30

The Mustard Seed - Matthew 13:31-32

The Net - Matthew 13:47-50

The Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> @Ben Zartman,
> 
> In Post #300 I asked a question to which I would appreciate a reply:
> 
> _Simon Magus was baptized on the basis of a(n apparently credible) profession. Was he in the covenant or outside it?_


Sorry I missed it, Tom. He was outside the covenant; a false professor.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Smeagol said:


> Ben,
> 
> I appreciate you getting back with me. I was raised a Baptist from birth and did not make the move until around 25 years of age. I say that just to give some backdrop to my knowledge of how things tend to go in a stereotypical Baptist setting (SBC strain & Calvinistic strain). I would still have concerns with your reasoning here, as I know you do with mine, but I will leave that be.
> 
> 1). However, I don’t think you addressed my charge of an over realized-ecclesiology regarding your remark that now we have “salvific union before inclusion”. Again, this can only be true in heaven.
> 
> 2). Nor did you address the this portion:
> 
> 
> 3. Lastly, do you have any thoughts/concerns regarding conflating the requirements for baptism/Lord’s supper? Do you believe the Bible conflates the 2 with regard to the *proper Recipients*? If my 5 year old daughter confesses faith in Christ, understands herself to be a sinner in need of the perfect work of Christ should she be baptized? Admitted to the super?
> 
> I think your forced to say either “no to both” OR “yes to both”, since Baptist interlock the 2 ….right?
> 
> I certainly could have missed a previous answer, but I think I have read all 300 post as best I can. If I did please forgive me.


1) Well, no--it's true now. Baptists require credible evidence of salvific union before inclusion in the visible covenant community. So what if unsaved people who are hearing the preaching are not members? Do they hear it less? So what if the visible throng aren't all members? It's to be hoped that the visitors and unsaved children will hear the Gospel and repent and believe, but they are not admitted to membership until they do. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
2) I guess I don't know what you all mean by visible/invisible administration. For baptists, the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not. If you're saved, you partake of Baptism on entry, then the Lord's Supper, and church discipline and oversight, which are not extended to non-members.

3) I have no concerns about having the same standard for baptism as for the Supper. The Supper is for believers who have made a credible profession and been baptized. If the elders judged in good conscience that your 5yo daughter's profession was credible and baptized her, it would be inconsistent to deny her the Table. That there is a hesitancy to accept a profession from a young age is more because it is harder to detect fruit in the young, and most elders in my experience would rather wait until their consciences are satisfied, knowing that the youth is in God's hands regardless, their discipline is mostly under parental authority, and the grace to patiently wait for their profession to be believable is one of the fruits of the spirit that they must display. These are things that any child would understand.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> Here are a few that might be related to child rearing and the Covenant. God bless!
> 
> The Sower - Matthew 13:1-23
> 
> The Weeds Among the Wheat - Matthew 13:24-30
> 
> The Mustard Seed - Matthew 13:31-32
> 
> The Net - Matthew 13:47-50
> 
> The Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32


I take this to mean you believe the kingdom of heaven = the church. Is that correct? I might not be following the argument you're trying to make - so help me out if I'm making wrong assumptions in this post - but I think you are trying to provide Scriptural evidence of why children of at least one believing parent ought to be baptized as infants and be included in the "visible" church. Yet I'm not following how some of these parables have anything to do with the question of "what is the condition of membership in Christ's church?".

How do you understand John 3:3 in the light of the texts referenced above? Christ there declares being born again is a requirement for admission into the kingdom. So with that in mind, please help me understand how you are interpreting passages such as "The Net" and "The Weeds Among the Wheat" to further your point.

If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page, let's at least apply that standard to both sides of the discussion. And to maintain the focus of this post, I won't mention the 4+ folks in this thread who've used a passing reference to household baptisms as support for the paedobaptist position! 

P.S. Anthony don't tell me you think the "kingdom of heaven" is different from the "kingdom of God"!


----------



## Romans922

II. 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;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I take this to mean you believe the kingdom of heaven = the church. Is that correct? I might not be following the argument you're trying to make - so help me out if I'm making wrong assumptions in this post - but I think you are trying to provide Scriptural evidence of why children of at least one believing parent ought to be baptized as infants and be included in the "visible" church. Yet I'm not following how some of these parables have anything to do with the question of "what is the condition of membership in Christ's church?".
> 
> How do you understand John 3:3 in the light of the texts referenced above? Christ there declares being born again is a requirement for admission into the kingdom. So with that in mind, please help me understand how you are interpreting passages such as "The Net" and "The Weeds Among the Wheat" to further your point.
> 
> If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page, let's at least apply that standard to both sides of the discussion. And to maintain the focus of this post, I won't mention the 4+ folks in this thread who've used a passing reference to household baptisms as support for the paedobaptist position!
> 
> P.S. Anthony don't tell me you think the "kingdom of heaven" is different from the "kingdom of God"!


The parables I posted started from a "sidequest" of sorts. Originally I was accused of presenting a red herring when making comparisons regarding creation and God's nature. I then began to explain my reasoning throughout posts 306 to 314. If you go back and read those, it would explain the weird tangent you witness here.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> The parables I posted started from a "sidequest" of sorts. Originally I was accused of presenting a red herring when making comparisons regarding creation and God's nature. I then began to explain my reasoning throughout posts 306 to 314. If you go back and read those, it would explain the weird tangent you witness here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Then why did you say in post #315 that the parables you go on to reference might relate to child rearing and the covenant? I am asking you to explain why it is that you think that.


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Then why did you say the parables in post #315 might relate to child rearing and the covenant? I am asking you to explain why it is that you think that.


I was asked by a dear brother to point out a parable that might be related to the topic...then I got frustrated because I felt like my original point about Christ using parables wasn't understood. Admittedly I was not at my best in that moment and got a little snappy. I was rushing for work and didn't take the time to consider my response. I sinned in my impatience. No bones about it.

Then I caught a break in between my hectic work schedule to try and present some parables for discussion. To try my best at presenting parables that might relate to childrearing per his request. That's all, nothing too fancy or extravagant here [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> 1) Well, no--it's true now. Baptists require credible evidence of salvific union before inclusion in the visible covenant community. So what if unsaved people who are hearing the preaching are not members? Do they hear it less? So what if the visible throng aren't all members? It's to be hoped that the visitors and unsaved children will hear the Gospel and repent and believe, but they are not admitted to membership until they do. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
> 2) I guess I don't know what you all mean by visible/invisible administration. For baptists, the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not. If you're saved, you partake of Baptism on entry, then the Lord's Supper, and church discipline and oversight, which are not extended to non-members.
> 
> 3) I have no concerns about having the same standard for baptism as for the Supper. The Supper is for believers who have made a credible profession and been baptized. If the elders judged in good conscience that your 5yo daughter's profession was credible and baptized her, it would be inconsistent to deny her the Table. That there is a hesitancy to accept a profession from a young age is more because it is harder to detect fruit in the young, and most elders in my experience would rather wait until their consciences are satisfied, knowing that the youth is in God's hands regardless, their discipline is mostly under parental authority, and the grace to patiently wait for their profession to be believable is one of the fruits of the spirit that they must display. These are things that any child would understand.


Ben, I admire your tenacity and rigidness in your defense of your convictions. We need more of this in the world today. 

Can you describe once more what it means to be "saved" again from your perspective? Forgive me if I missed it in an earlier post or if you already answered the question. If you did already I would be happy to be pointed to the number of the post that explains it. No worries [emoji846][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page…


To be clear, I was objecting to the claim that God said something which he has not in fact said. It is one thing to make a reference to a doctrine like covenant baptism without necessarily going into every detail, and another thing to say, “God says such and such,” when there is no place in Scripture where he does.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans922 said:


> II. 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;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.


I subscribe to a different confession.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> Ben, I admire your tenacity and rigidness in your defense of your convictions. We need more of this in the world today.
> 
> Can you describe once more what it means to be "saved" again from your perspective? Forgive me if I missed it in an earlier post or if you already answered the question. If you did already I would be happy to be pointed to the number of the post that explains it. No worries [emoji846][emoji106]
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Sure. Someone who is saved has repented of their sins and is believing that Jesus made atonement for them.
Someone who is saved has been born again--God has taken out his native heart of stone and given him an heart of flesh.
Someone who is saved has been made alive when he was dead in trespasses and sins.

What's your understanding of salvation?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> To be clear, I was objecting to the claim that God said something which he has not in fact said. It is one thing to make a reference to a doctrine like covenant baptism without necessarily going into every detail, and saying “God says such and such,” when there is no place in Scripture where he does.


Jesus is God. Jesus said to take the Gospel to the world, to make disciples, to baptize them. The Bible is His word, and when His ministers spoke and tied baptism to repentance, they were speaking on His behalf. Are you suggesting that the words of the Apostles recorded in Scripture can't be taken for requirements of God?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not.


Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH

Eyedoc84 said:


> Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.


While the LBCF acknowledges such thing as visible saints, it avoids the language of a "visible church". You can see more here, and the distinctions between each paragraph: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

(Now whether or not I think it's consistent to allow for visible saints without a visible church, is a different dilemma)


----------



## Eyedoc84

It also defines invisible church differently than he did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> Jesus is God. Jesus said to take the Gospel to the world, to make disciples, to baptize them. The Bible is His word, and when His ministers spoke and tied baptism to repentance, they were speaking on His behalf. Are you suggesting that the words of the Apostles recorded in Scripture can't be taken for requirements of God?


With this, I am going to step away from the discussion. I have plenty else to see to, and I do not count it a profitable use of my time to swat away silly suggestions that I have some kind of low view of the words of Scripture.

Finally, I would direct you to a study of the Greek grammar of Matthew 28:19-20. As I said before, you are operating on some faulty assumptions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.


Sean, I think you would prefer to rewrite that to say maybe that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom that is in this world. It is spiritual as well as physical. I didn't quit being a physical person when I was regenerate. The Kingdom of God is more than you are stating. The Church here is made up of wheat and tares.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sean, I think you would prefer to rewrite that to say maybe that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom that is in this world. It is spiritual as well as physical. I didn't quit being a physical person when I was regenerate. The Kingdom of God is more than you are stating. *The Church here is made up of wheat and tares.*



The *visible* church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The *visible* church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).
> 
> But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.


Yeah, we have very different views concerning the Kingdom of God. I believe it is bigger and more encompassing than just the Elect.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The *visible* church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).
> 
> But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.


Sean, Matthew 13:24- “The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field…” 

vs. 41, “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things which offend..”

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

John Gill:

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,.... “

“Somewhat like the former, but with a different view: for whereas the design of the former was to show the different sorts of hearers that attend upon the ministry of the word, three parts in four being bad; this is to show the difference of members in churches, some being comparable to good seed, and others to tares.

“The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven" is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it…

“by "the tares" sown among them, are meant "the children of the wicked one"; Satan, the enemy and adversary, as in Matt 13:38 who are to be understood, not of profane sinners; though these are the children of the devil; but of professors of religion, men either of bad principles, or of bad lives and conversations; whom Satan, by some means or another, gets into churches, and they become members thereof: at first they look like wheat, like true believers, have a show of religion, a form of godliness, an appearance of grace, but are destitute of it; and prove tares, unfruitful, unprofitable, and of no account, yea hurtful, and whose end is to be burned.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D.

It seems to me that Matthew 13:41 compared with John 3:3 clearly shows that the term "Kingdom of God/heaven" is used in two related yet distinct senses. The given contexts also indicate that differnce is reasonably expressed by visible vs. invisible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

The vine and branches in John 15. The branches that don't bear fruit WERE in union with the vine...

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another."
John 15:1‭-‬17 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Eyedoc84 said:


> Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.


I said exactly what that portion of the LBCF does.


----------



## Eyedoc84

Ben Zartman said:


> I said exactly what that portion of the LBCF does.


No you didn’t.

You said:


Ben Zartman said:


> the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world.


So the invisible church is the sum of the visible churches. 

But the LBC says the invisible church is made up of the elect in all ages, even those who don’t yet profess faith. So the invisible church consists even of those who are not currently among those called “visible saints”.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Eyedoc84 said:


> No you didn’t.
> 
> You said:
> 
> So the invisible church is the sum of the visible churches.
> 
> But the LBC says the invisible church is made up of the elect in all ages, even those who don’t yet profess faith. So the invisible church consists even of those who are not currently among those called “visible saints”.


I see your quibble. But those who are not yet regenerated are not yet part of it. Though they will become part of the invisible church, and the language of 'will be' is used so that we know that the whole number of the redeemed is still being added to and will be until Christ returns, that isn't saying that they are members before they are converted. That those who are elect surely will be saved does not negate the fact that they are natively not in union with Christ.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> I see your quibble. But those who are not yet regenerated are not yet part of it. Though they will become part of the invisible church, and the language of 'will be' is used so that we know that the whole number of the redeemed is still being added to and will be until Christ returns, that isn't saying that they are members before they are converted. That those who are elect surely will be saved does not negate the fact that they are natively not in union with Christ.


There is union in Christ in election, brother. Way before we make any profession of faith God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. There is union before we are born, union after birth and subsequent regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and union after in heavenly dwelling. Union with Christ starts and finishes with God, man is just a witness to His works.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."
Ephesians 1:3‭-‬10 ESV

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Reformed Forum's video on "Aspects of Union with Christ"






Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Eyedoc84

The problem as I see it, @Ben Zartman , is that the way you have defined things, the local assembly is always and infallibly made up of the elect. The baptist always and only baptizes elect persons. No person is ever admitted to the visible number who is not elect, and no elect person is ever missed. 

I know you say baptist elders are not infallible when sorting out credible professions, but you see how I think that is completely incompatible with your definitions. Mistakes of church admission/baptism are logically impossible with what you’ve given. You have collapsed the invisible into the visible, and collapsed the elect into “wet professors”. 

Yet when it comes to sacramentology, on one hand you deny any “physical administration” in the new covenant, but reduce the sacraments into ordinances that are _mere_ symbols (does our God command vanities?), and that based not on God’s promises to us, but on _our_ promise to Him. Which incidentally leads to a functional anabaptism, where if at some point I or the elders have reason to doubt my original profession, but now I _really_ show fruit, theology would require me to get dunked again (and potentially again, and again, and again) because I didn’t truly get baptized the first time. But all this for a _mere_ symbol. So does it matter, or not matter if we “get it right”? 

The last two paragraphs are hopelessly muddled (in my mind), which is partly what led to my “reformation”:

I was a credobaptistic Arminian for 20 years, and marshalled Reformed Baptist arguments in discussions with Calvinistic paedos. They fit quite well when it all came down to _my_ profession as evidence that I had become part of God’s elect (I was an Arminian of the corporate election stripe). While the two dominoes of Arminian/credo did not fall simultaneously for me, they did fall _inevitably_. 

Thanks for your continued diligence, Ben (I would at least include Sean and Phil as well). You are in fact an encouragement to me as you continue to hold fast your convictions despite opposition from many sides. Would that I do the same in my daily battles with the flesh and oppressors from without!

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Imputatio

As the one who originally asked the question, I’d like to chime in. 

It seems as though raising your children under the paedobaptist system as members of the covenant people of God would have a greater benefit to them than treating them as outsiders and perpetually downplaying their profession until you see more fruit. 

***I know this is not necessarily how it plays out everywhere. I’m just generalizing.***

That said, I know we don’t reverse engineer our theology from something we like; rather we want to know what Scripture says. 

I need to keep studying the issue. 

Thanks for this ongoing conversation everyone. Very appreciated.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Ben Zartman

Eyedoc84 said:


> The problem as I see it, @Ben Zartman , is that the way you have defined things, the local assembly is always and infallibly made up of the elect. The baptist always and only baptizes elect persons. No person is ever admitted to the visible number who is not elect, and no elect person is ever missed.
> 
> I know you say baptist elders are not infallible when sorting out credible professions, but you see how I think that is completely incompatible with your definitions. Mistakes of church admission/baptism are logically impossible with what you’ve given. You have collapsed the invisible into the visible, and collapsed the elect into “wet professors”.
> 
> Yet when it comes to sacramentology, on one hand you deny any “physical administration” in the new covenant, but reduce the sacraments into ordinances that are _mere_ symbols (does our God command vanities?), and that based not on God’s promises to us, but on _our_ promise to Him. Which incidentally leads to a functional anabaptism, where if at some point I or the elders have reason to doubt my original profession, but now I _really_ show fruit, theology would require me to get dunked again (and potentially again, and again, and again) because I didn’t truly get baptized the first time. But all this for a _mere_ symbol. So does it matter, or not matter if we “get it right”?
> 
> The last two paragraphs are hopelessly muddled (in my mind), which is partly what led to my “reformation”:
> 
> I was a credobaptistic Arminian for 20 years, and marshalled Reformed Baptist arguments in discussions with Calvinistic paedos. They fit quite well when it all came down to _my_ profession as evidence that I had become part of God’s elect (I was an Arminian of the corporate election stripe). While the two dominoes of Arminian/credo did not fall simultaneously for me, they did fall _inevitably_.
> 
> Thanks for your continued diligence, Ben (I would at least include Sean and Phil as well). You are in fact an encouragement to me as you continue to hold fast your convictions despite opposition from many sides. Would that I do the same in my daily battles with the flesh and oppressors from without!


I don't see anything incompatible with my definitions, nor have all baptists ever. Just because the sign gets mistakenly administered is no reason to throw it out, or to include everyone willy-nilly. That's like throwing the baby out with the font water. Nor is it a reason to despise a "mere" sign, as you call, since it is a requirement of Christ, who does all things well. Is it not blessed to see someone publicly profess their faith in the waters of baptism? I find it an occasion of great joy and blessing in the church when someone is baptized.

I'm not sure about denying a physical administation--there is the local church doing all that the local church is commanded to do, we could take that as a visible administration: but unsaved people are not properly part of that church. They might attend, and hopefully repent and be baptized and join, but until they do they are neither members of the New Covenant, nor should be members in the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> There is union in Christ in election, brother. Way before we make any profession of faith God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. There is union before we are born, union after birth and subsequent regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and union after in heavenly dwelling. Union with Christ starts and finishes with God, man is just a witness to His works.
> 
> "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."
> Ephesians 1:3‭-‬10 ESV
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


The kindest thing I can say is that we're looking at this from different angles. Sure, Christ loved every one of the elect before the world began, and died specifically for each, and their redemption was guaranteed before ever God began to create the world. But because they fell in Adam, they still require redemption. Union with Christ-the New Birth-happens in time. Otherwise Jesus' words to Nicodemus make no sense; nor do Paul's when he said "you hath He quickened, who were dead."
And while God knows whom Jesus died for, we do not. We have established that not all children of believers turn out to have been elect. The "you and your children" language does not vouchsafe salvation if the promises aren't claimed. So this digression about union is not really relevant to the thread.
Or if you think it is, can you explain why?
While you're at it, do you mind answering the other questions I asked you in posts above? It's difficult to engage when you don't answer questions but instead take off on tangents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> The kindest thing I can say is that we're looking at this from different angles. Sure, Christ loved every one of the elect before the world began, and died specifically for each, and their redemption was guaranteed before ever God began to create the world. But because they fell in Adam, they still require redemption. Union with Christ-the New Birth-happens in time. Otherwise Jesus' words to Nicodemus make no sense; nor do Paul's when he said "you hath He quickened, who were dead."
> And while God knows whom Jesus died for, we do not. We have established that not all children of believers turn out to have been elect. The "you and your children" language does not vouchsafe salvation if the promises aren't claimed. So this digression about union is not really relevant to the thread.
> Or if you think it is, can you explain why?
> While you're at it, do you mind answering the other questions I asked you in posts above? It's difficult to engage when you don't answer questions but instead take off on tangents.



I didn't go on a digression, brother. Read your own comment on union with Christ in #342.

Union with Christ is the foundation of this discussion. I answered the question about salvation in the post #343 about union with Christ.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> There is union in Christ in election, brother.
> 
> "In love he predestined us for adoption to himself *as sons through Jesus Christ*, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."


Our children are either in Adam or in Christ. God has no grandchildren in the church. Keep reading through Ephesians.

"And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things *to the church, which is His body*, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone of the church. The Spirit dwells within those who are of God's household. There is one body and one Spirit. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. *All* who are in the body of Christ will attain to the unity of the faith, to a mature man, etc. Christ is the Savior of the church. The church is subject to Christ. Christ nourishes and cherishes his own body, the church.

How in any of this do you draw the conclusion there is a "visible church" consisting of professors of true religion, and their children?


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Our children are either in Adam or in Christ. God has no grandchildren in the church. Keep reading through Ephesians.
> 
> "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things *to the church, which is His body*, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone of the church. The Spirit dwells within those who are of God's household. There is one body and one Spirit. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. *All* who are in the body of Christ will attain to the unity of the faith, to a mature man, etc. Christ is the Savior of the church. The church is subject to Christ. Christ nourishes and cherishes his own body, the church.
> 
> How in any of this do you draw the conclusion there is a "visible church" consisting of professors of true religion, and their children?


See comment #343. When I get a break from work I will consider your question a little deeper. Blessings.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> See comment #343. When I get a break from work I will consider your question a little deeper. Blessings.


Thank you! Unless you are seeking to assert all children of believers are elect, I'm not sure how #343 answers my question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Thank you! Unless you are seeking to assert all children of believers are elect, I'm not sure how #343 answers my question.



Help me understand brother, where in this thread did someone assert all children of believers are elect? I don't recall seeing that honestly.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Grafted In

In answer to the questions of the OP from a covenant, household baptism perspective, I believe it is instructive to observe the ways in which the Lord Himself used the covenant sign in the rearing of His children, which is the pattern we should use in rearing our own. The book of Deuteronomy is very instructive in this regard. Consider the following observations.

Deuteronomy begins with Moses rehearsing the history of the children of Israel from their deliverance from Egypt and subsequent forty year wilderness wanderings, which was due to their stiff-necked lack of faith and disobedience. The Ten Commandments are restated and the people are warned not to forget the Lord when they enter the Land. This large introductory section (I'm not offering a detailed outline of the book, just making general observations), is about the necessity of obedience to the Lord for taking possession of the Land. It appears to climax in chapter 10 with the command of 10:16--"Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." By this the Lord indicates that the sign of circumcision is first of all making a demand of the covenant community, both male and female. Chapter 11 highlights the blessings of obeying the Lord with a circumcised heart.
As others have observed, chapters 12 to 26 largely focus on how the Ten Commandments are to be applied to life in covenant with the Lord through the various laws enumerated there.
Chapters 27-29 detail the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience to the covenant made on Sinai. 
Chapter 30 starts by dispelling any illusion that God's stiff-necked, uncircumcised-of-heart people will escape the curses written in the book. But it speaks of the promise that the Lord will, then, have compassion on His sin-cursed people and bring them back from their captivity in the world to give them the Land of Promise. This time, however, their entrance into the Land will be founded on better promises, the promise of 30:6--"And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." 
Based specifically on Paul's teaching on why the Law was given to God's children (e.g. Romans 7 and Galatians 3), I believe that Deuteronomy not only gives us an overview of the history of salvation but displays to us the order of salvation. God must first show His children how desperately wicked are their hearts, the terror of being in that condition, and that they cannot do for themselves through the law what they most need, which is circumcising their hearts. After the Law and the curses for disobedience have taught them that and they cry out in their need, then He circumcises their hearts so that they can live with Him.

The Lord commanded that Abraham and his children put the sign of circumcision on their infant males (though the command to circumcise their hearts was given to all--male and female), because the Lord brings His children to faith through both the demand that physcial circumcise signifies ("Circumcise the foreskins of your heart and be stiff-necked no longer") and the gift that it points to ("I will circumcise your hearts that you may live"). This is how He rears His children to know Him as their God.

When the sign of baptism was put upon my children, it was telling me how to rear them to know the Lord. Constantly (Deut. 6:5-9) tell them that from the day of their birth they are filthy of heart. Their baptism signifies that God judges and declares that their natural born hearts are unfit for His kingdom and makes the demand that they get a clean heart. But they cannot meet the Lord's righteous demands nor wash their own hearts clean through their works. God must wash their hearts clean and give them the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is the gift of grace baptism was also pointing them toward and calling them to embrace by faith. So we tell them on the Lord's behalf that until they receive the gift their baptism holds out to them they are living under the terror of the demand that their baptism also signifies to them.

All of that to say, baptism is a means of grace to the children of believers, which God uses to make our children disciples of Jesus Christ. If it is withheld from the children of believers, it substantively truncates the means of grace God has graciously provided for us to bring to bear on their lives. 

Peace in Christ,

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> Help me understand brother, where in this thread did someone assert all children of believers are elect? I don't recall seeing that honestly.


I am asking you to explain why you think the church should include professing believers AND their children (and based on your recent posts across this forum, I believe that is your viewpoint or at least your strong "leaning"), especially in light of what we see written in the book of Ephesians. I drew from Ephesians because you quoted Ephesians in post #343. In response, you pointed me back to post #343 in which you talk ONLY about those who are in union to Christ. Ok, so do you believe all children of believers are in union with Christ?

I think my questions to you in post #252, which have also not received a response, were trying to probe at the same issue, perhaps from a slightly different angle.

EDIT: Actually, Ben was asking the exact same thing about what union with Christ means to you, in post #250 - which also did not receive a direct response - so I guess we really are going in circles.


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> In your view, how do you see a non-elect infant who has just received an involuntary sprinkling meeting the Biblical definition of a hypocrite?
> 
> Did you mean to say that baptists ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for _baptism_? If you did mean what you typed (salvation), what do you assert are the arbitrary requirements for *salvation* established by the baptist? Baptism? A credible profession of faith? Based on my understanding, I don't think either of those are an accurate representation of baptist preaching or practice.
> 
> _The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version_
> Q.89: What does God, in His gospel, require of sinners that they may be saved?
> A: God, in His gospel, requires of sinners faith in Jesus Christ and repentance unto life that they may escape His wrath due for their sin, and be saved.


Found it! Give me some time. I'm about to go back in for work [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I am asking you to explain why you think the church should include professing believers AND their children (and based on your recent posts across this forum, I believe that is your viewpoint or at least your strong "leaning"), especially in light of what we see written in the book of Ephesians. I drew from Ephesians because you quoted Ephesians in post #343. In response, you pointed me back to post #343 in which you talk ONLY about those who are in union to Christ. Ok, so do you believe all children of believers are in union with Christ?
> 
> I think my questions to you in post #252, which have also not received a response, were trying to probe at the same issue, perhaps from a slightly different angle.
> 
> EDIT: Actually, Ben was asking the exact same thing about what union with Christ means to you, in post #250 - which also did not receive a direct response - so I guess we really are going in circles.



How does my answer in #343 not satisfy your question about union with Christ? I don't understand. What exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure I answered your question about what I believe union with Christ means. Am I missing something here? 

Is it the subject of children that you want me to expound upon? Brother, I already did that all throughout this thread. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I'm sorry, I'm not doing it.

EDIT: By arbitrary requirements, I refer to 1) the depth a person is to be baptized (mode) and 2) the age requirement for baptism. In an effort to be "less catholic" we have placed several stumbling blocks in front of genuine young believers preventing them from coming to the King. Why? For the sake of a "pure" church? We have turned from one extreme to the other, from "too much inclusion" to "not including enough". Then we create "programs" and "councils" and "centers" to try to integrate children in the church, when all this time we had means to do it in baptism. This is how I feel about this entire issue. We move heaven and earth to exclude our children from the new covenant, and I cannot for the life of me understand why. 

You're probably going to pick this apart. That's ok. You're probably going to ask me to drill into each and every subject I just brought up. That's ok, you have every right to. Just know that I love you either way, brother. No feelings of malice come from my words here.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Now I'm going back to work LoL. I'll be back [emoji106].

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> How does my answer in #343 not satisfy your question about union with Christ? I don't understand. What exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure I answered your question about what I believe union with Christ means. Am I missing something here?
> 
> Is it the subject of children that you want me to expound upon? Brother, I already did that all throughout this thread. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I'm sorry, I'm not doing it.
> 
> EDIT: By arbitrary requirements, I refer to 1) the depth a person is to be baptized (mode) and 2) the age requirement for baptism. In an effort to be "less catholic" we have placed several stumbling blocks in front of genuine young believers preventing them from coming to the King. Why? For the sake of a "pure" church? We have turned from one extreme to the other, from "too much inclusion" to "not including enough". Then we create "programs" and "councils" and "centers" to try to integrate children in the church, when all this time we had means to do it in baptism. This is how I feel about this entire issue. We move heaven and earth to exclude our children from the new covenant, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.
> 
> You're probably going to pick this apart. That's ok. You're probably going to ask me to drill into each and every subject I just brought up. That's ok, you have every right to. Just know that I love you either way, brother. No feelings of malice come from my words here.


Thank you for the response, and although more could be said, I think I at least at a high level grasp the "complaint" (my one word summary) you bring against how some practice the baptist position.

Is the answer to sprinkle every child of a believer as a newborn infant? It seems to me that you are going from one "extreme" that you have encountered in baptist circles to an entirely different extreme. Your complaint may be resolved, yet other significant problems arise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Thank you for the response, and although more could be said, I think I at least at a high level grasp the "complaint" (my one word summary) you bring against how some practice the baptist position.
> 
> Is the answer to sprinkle every child of a believer as a newborn infant? It seems to me that you are going from one "extreme" that you have encountered in baptist circles to an entirely different extreme. Your complaint may be resolved, yet other significant problems arise.



That is fair assessment, brother. I don't know yet. I am caught in between seeing a deficit but not knowing how to resolve it.
Not in a prideful "AH HA GOTCHA!" way, but from a mathematical and more logical way. Like 2+2 type of stuff, you know? My intention is to resolve the deficit in my own lack of understanding of things. Pulling out the mote in my own eye of ignorance so to speak. Plus we are having our 4th child in July so the heat is on...[emoji102][emoji102][emoji102][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] Pray for us brother. I shall do likewise.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Romans678 said:


> How does my answer in #343 not satisfy your question about union with Christ? I don't understand. What exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure I answered your question about what I believe union with Christ means. Am I missing something here?
> 
> Is it the subject of children that you want me to expound upon? Brother, I already did that all throughout this thread. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I'm sorry, I'm not doing it.
> 
> EDIT: By arbitrary requirements, I refer to 1) the depth a person is to be baptized (mode) and 2) the age requirement for baptism. In an effort to be "less catholic" we have placed several stumbling blocks in front of genuine young believers preventing them from coming to the King. Why? For the sake of a "pure" church? We have turned from one extreme to the other, from "too much inclusion" to "not including enough". Then we create "programs" and "councils" and "centers" to try to integrate children in the church, when all this time we had means to do it in baptism. This is how I feel about this entire issue. We move heaven and earth to exclude our children from the new covenant, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.
> 
> You're probably going to pick this apart. That's ok. You're probably going to ask me to drill into each and every subject I just brought up. That's ok, you have every right to. Just know that I love you either way, brother. No feelings of malice come from my words here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I also feel that you have not answered our questions, but let's put that aside and address your edit. By obeying the scripture as we understand it in the matter of baptism, we place no stumbling blocks for children to come to faith: we bring them weekly under the preaching of the Word, which God says will accomplish all His purpose; we read Scripture and pray and sing with them daily--at least many of us do. We bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We urge them to lay hold on Christ, and we live before them a consistent Christian life of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ.
As for programs and councils and centers--away with all that stuff. The foolish inventions of those who recognize neither the Regulative Principle of Worship nor the sufficiency of what God has given is not an argument against good theology, it is just nonsense in itself. Perhaps you're confused because you've only been in churches that add all that rubbish--the solution is to seek a church that teaches and practices Baptist theology consistently. Sadly, those are getting harder to find.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote. 
The Legacy of Faithful Parents​I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years. 

I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​

The Legacy of Faithful Parents

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Romans678

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents​I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.
> 
> I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​
> 
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents


"What we tolerate a little bit of in our lives, our children may carry to an excess..."

This quote alone just gave me the chills. God help us.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## LilyG

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents​I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.
> 
> I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​
> 
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents



Love that!


----------



## LilyG

Romans678 said:


> That is fair assessment, brother. I don't know yet. I am caught in between seeing a deficit but not knowing how to resolve it.
> Not in a prideful "AH HA GOTCHA!" way, but from a mathematical and more logical way. Like 2+2 type of stuff, you know? My intention is to resolve the deficit in my own lack of understanding of things. Pulling out the mote in my own eye of ignorance so to speak. Plus we are having our 4th child in July so the heat is on...[emoji102][emoji102][emoji102][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] Pray for us brother. I shall do likewise.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



Our 4th is due this summer as well! 

We are going to frame their baptism certificates for them. That they may see and wonder and rest.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

LilyG said:


> Our 4th is due this summer as well!
> 
> We are going to frame their baptism certificates for them. That they may see and wonder and rest.


Praise God and congratulations!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Imputatio

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents​I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.
> 
> I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​
> 
> The Legacy of Faithful Parents


Thank you for this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

@greenbaggins could you outline your recommended sources and order of study on this topic? I know you recommended some things in the thread, but I’d like something of a laid out plan if you’re willing. 

Also, for everyone, what is the best of the RB side that I should dig into?


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans678 said:


> That is fair assessment, brother. I don't know yet. I am caught in between seeing a deficit but not knowing how to resolve it.
> Not in a prideful "AH HA GOTCHA!" way, but from a mathematical and more logical way. Like 2+2 type of stuff, you know? My intention is to resolve the deficit in my own lack of understanding of things. Pulling out the mote in my own eye of ignorance so to speak. Plus we are having our 4th child in July so the heat is on...


Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.


----------



## Romans922

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.


The last sentence. They were taken away…but they were part of the vine…

They were part of Christ…. 


There’s your visible. 

They went out FROM US….

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.



I have to go back and read what you said about the excerpts in Ephesians. Please bear with me. Until then here is my response to your last comment.

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” And the Lord said to me, “Faithless Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, “‘Return, faithless Israel, declares the Lord. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the Lord your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice, declares the Lord. Return, O faithless children, declares the Lord; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
Jeremiah 3:6‭-‬14

In this passage I see God's decree of divorce AND a demonstration of His unfailing mercy in spite of their unfaithfulness. I see God threatening to divorce and speaking mercy over His wayward people in the same chapter. I cannot understand what you are trying to say regarding Jeremiah 3:8.

From my point of view I see the fullness of God's mercy unveiled in the OT as well as the NT. The bride in the OT is the same as the Bride in the NT. They looked to the same Messiah we look to. I cannot separate the two any longer. I'm sorry brother, I just can't concede. 

As for the church herself:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Hebrews 6:1‭-‬8 

Who is capable of tasting the heavenly gift, share in the Holy Spirit, and taste the goodness of the word of God and still fall away? Who are these people? In what realm and jurisdiction are we referring to? It's the church. Where else can one experience these things? It can't be anything else but the church. 

The hypocrites are in the visible church, brother. The church you see with your eyes. The people you talk to and pray with. You have no idea who the elect are. No matter how hard you try to identify fruit or make sure the person is credible, you will only be relegated to outward appearances which accounts for nothing to God. Even the people with the most visible "fruit", Christ said there will be many that say Lord, Lord and will not enter into His kingdom.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.


My reference to Ephesians was regarding those in union with Christ. The Reformed Baptist view of the church:

Of the Church, Section 3: The purest Churches under heaven are subject to mixture, and error; and som have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but Synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a Kingdome in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his Name. —Chapter 26, 1689 London Baptist Confession

I would like to think they were referring to the visible church vs the invisible church which is further explained in this section here:

Of the Church, Section 1: The Catholick or universal Church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. —Chapter 26, 1689 London Baptist Confession

Does this help with the invisible/visible distinction or am I missing the mark?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678

Jeri Tanner said:


> John Gill:
> 
> “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,.... “
> 
> “Somewhat like the former, but with a different view: for whereas the design of the former was to show the different sorts of hearers that attend upon the ministry of the word, three parts in four being bad; this is to show the difference of members in churches, some being comparable to good seed, and others to tares.
> 
> “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven" is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it…
> 
> “by "the tares" sown among them, are meant "the children of the wicked one"; Satan, the enemy and adversary, as in Matt 13:38 who are to be understood, not of profane sinners; though these are the children of the devil; but of professors of religion, men either of bad principles, or of bad lives and conversations; whom Satan, by some means or another, gets into churches, and they become members thereof: at first they look like wheat, like true believers, have a show of religion, a form of godliness, an appearance of grace, but are destitute of it; and prove tares, unfruitful, unprofitable, and of no account, yea hurtful, and whose end is to be burned.”



Just wanted to quote this to bring to the front of the thread. This is super relevant to where we are in the conversation. Thank you [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.


Go to worship tomorrow and you will see the visible church with your eyes, you'll see the sacraments administered (outward visible signs). Are you say that you do not see any indication in Scripture of a visible church on earth gathered to worship the living God? If you do not, why do you worship on the Lord's day with a gathering of God's professing people mixed with apostates and the wicked?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.



Simply because their children are participating in the same activities as their parents. We can't just count them out because of an age difference. That's all I'm saying. 

Lets look at this from a different view. Let's pretend we are just talking about the visible aspect of the church: the people attending each Sunday. Lets focus in on the physical people, not the invisible inner working of the Spirit in salvation and sanctification. 

I want to use an example in nature. Just a simple observation without going too deep into it. There are parents that like baseball and participate in baseball. The odds of the children picking up a glove are very high. Another example: race car driving. Let's assume that a child is in the sphere of racing since he was a baby. What are the odds of that child winning the F1 Drivers Championship? Sinners baptize their children in the world everyday in the last of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. While we wait for a "proper time" the world has already placed their waters over our kids heads...

My entire point in this thread boils down to this: our children participate in every means of grace available in the church but we do not baptize them. We don't include them. We in turn ostracize them and figuratively send them "outside the camp" labeled as "other". Our own children, that God calls a heritage, we treat as second rate citizens in the kingdom. Please consider what I am saying before you cry out "strawman". I am a Baptist. I have done these things myself of over ten years. I've done the things I am referring to in this very post for a decade. I no longer feel comfortable treating my kids as "other".

Those is a big deal, brother. Not something to be taken lightly. And I confess I have neglected these weightier matters for far too long. Pray for us please.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.


Who does he say this too? 

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Who does he say this too?
> 
> Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
> Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
> Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
> Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
> Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


I didn't even think to look there, brother. This is good.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Romans922 said:


> Go to worship tomorrow and you will see the visible church with your eyes, you'll see the sacraments administered (outward visible signs). Are you say that you do not see any indication in Scripture of a visible church on earth gathered to worship the living God? If you do not, why do you worship on the Lord's day with a gathering of God's professing people mixed with apostates and the wicked?


The question is a _non sequitur_ from the baptist position but I understand why you are asking. In a similar vein, my response will not be satisfactory to you but I do not wish to ignore your post as I appreciate the dialogue.

"So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-22 The context of this passage is certainly interesting as well, given our topic of discussion. 

Yes, individual stones come together every Lord's Day in particular places (congregations) to worship the living God. During that time, some are present who are not believers, whether they profess to be or not. There is a great chasm set between that reality and propping up the building with those who do not profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.


Romans678 said:


> Simply because their children are participating in the same activities as their parents. We can't just count them out because of an age difference. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> Lets look at this from a different view. Let's pretend we are just talking about the visible aspect of the church: the people attending each Sunday. Lets focus in on the physical people, not the invisible inner working of the Spirit in salvation and sanctification.
> 
> I want to use an example in nature. Just a simple observation without going too deep into it. There are parents that like baseball and participate in baseball. The odds of the children picking up a glove are very high. Another example: race car driving. Let's assume that a child is in the sphere of racing since he was a baby. What are the odds of that child winning the F1 Drivers Championship? Sinners baptize their children in the world everyday in the last of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. While we wait for a "proper time" the world has already placed their waters over our kids heads...
> 
> My entire point in this thread boils down to this: our children participate in every means of grace available in the church but we do not baptize them. We don't include them. We in turn ostracize them and figuratively send them "outside the camp" labeled as "other". Our own children, that God calls a heritage, we treat as second rate citizens in the kingdom. Please consider what I am saying before you cry out "strawman". I am a Baptist. I have done these things myself of over ten years. I've done the things I am referring to in this very post for a decade. I no longer feel comfortable treating my kids as "other".
> 
> Those is a big deal, brother. Not something to be taken lightly. And I confess I have neglected these weightier matters for far too long. Pray for us please.


As with most of your posts, I agree in general with the sentiments you express but differ on some specifics.

First, whether unconverted children or a random visitor joins us on the Lord's Day, my church - a congregation constituted of visible saints - does not make any unbeliever feel like an "other" or "send them outside the camp." They are warmly welcomed to join us and "participate in the means of grace" (to use your words), at least those which are available to them. However, just because someone is a regular visitor, or the child of a church member, does not mean new covenant sacraments are administered to them. It's not an Exodus 12:48 scenario where all the person has to do is circumcise the males of his household to celebrate the Passover. We are part of a new and better covenant, enacted on better promises.

Second, the imagery you've used here and in the past about the world "baptizing" our children.. well, dramatic to be sure, and there are some real implications there for us as Christian parents, but I don't know that it has relevance to the _actual _sacrament of baptism. You're using "baptism" to talk about something else entirely. Sorry, I'm not going to pragmatically try and beat the world to the punch at "baptizing" my child when it is clear in Scripture who should be the recipient of the new covenant sacrament of baptism. Now, I will follow Ephesians 6:4 to address the reality of what you are describing, but that doesn't include an infant being involuntarily sprinkled and pronounced a member of the "visible church."

Brother, I don't know if you once firmly believed in the baptist understanding of the means of grace, sacraments, etc., and are now wavering, or if this is the first time you are weighing these matters in your heart, but I strongly suggest you study the 1689 LBCF chapters #26-30 and associated proof texts as well as catechism questions on these topics. As one good resource, I recommend Q.s 94-105 in The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Who does he say this too?
> 
> Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
> Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
> Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
> Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
> Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


Regarding this passage, I fully agree with Derek Thomas, Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church, when he says, "The danger is formalism. Failure to repent is catastrophic: Jesus threatens to remove the lampstand! Licence leads to apostasy, which in turn leads to death."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio

Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.


How did you wish it to end? With everyone agreeing together? You'll have to start a thread that ends in Glory for that.


----------



## Romans678

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.


We can keep it going. What are some traditions you guys enjoy doing with your families? Just looking for some ideas for my family. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor

Romans678 said:


> We can keep it going. What are some traditions you guys enjoy doing with your families? Just looking for some ideas for my family.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Let’s not keep the thread going just for the sake of keeping it going, especially with off-topic content. If the thread is done, let it be done.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------

