# Baptists and the Promises



## Peairtach (May 18, 2010)

What do baptists think about all the promises in the Bible respecting children born to believers?

Do they

(a) Spiritualise them, so that they refer only to those "children" of ours that have been converted through our influence e.g. Paul calling Timothy his "son".

(b) Believe that they are no longer relevant, because they were just for Old Covenant believing parents.

(c) Believe they are relevant, but somehow these promises are non-Covenantal or outside the Covenant.

(d) Believe they are relevant and Covenantal, but that just because some Covenantal promises refer to the children of believers, and that they are in that sense Covenant Children, that doesn't mean we should baptise them.

Option (d) would be closest to Presbyterianism, although it's true that among Presbyterians these promises aren't sometimes emphasised in the way they should be.


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2010)

What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell? 

If there truly is a promise apart from a steady diet of good Christian parenting the same that any Baptist family can provide (without sprinkling their kid with the magic water that effects some sort of change apart from what baptists can provide with sound parenting alone and no water until a credible profession of faith) then we should not expect to see a large number of Presbyterian children of believers fall away or should see a quantitative difference between baptized children of believers who fall away versus unbaptized children of believers.

If the promise is somehow contained in and revolves around baptism of your children, if the promise is only 50-75% effective, how much is it worth when a large percentage of children of baptized believers fall away? 

The Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 34) says: 'And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them.' So, the Belgic Confession says that Jesus shed his blood for the children of believers without qualification..not merely 50% of the children of believers.



I believe the general promise of God that if I raise my child in the Word he will not go astray. That water sprinkled on a baby effects nothing.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

As I teach my child the Word and we gather in church and see the ordinance and hear the Word, he is "under" the outward administration of the covenant.


The Promise is to all who are near and all who are far off, as many as the Lord shall call.... (Acts 2)..Presbyterians usually only use the first half of that verse.,...... as many as the Lord shall call. 


I, as a Christian parent and a credobaptist, who raises his children in the teaching of the Word is just as promised by God as a Presbyterian family that raises their children in the Lord PLUS adds a little splash at the beginning. What extra power or thing does that little splash add that I do not have?


----------



## SemperEruditio (May 18, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell?
> 
> If there truly is a promise apart from a steady diet of good Christian parenting the same that any Baptist family can provide (without sprinkling their kid with the magic water that effects some sort of change apart from what baptists can provide with sound parenting alone and no water until a credible profession of faith) then we should not expect to see a large number of Presbyterian children of believers fall awayor should se a quantitative difference between baptized children of believers who fall away versus unbaptized children of believers.
> 
> ...


 
Where can I find it taught that Presbyterians believe that baptism effects change? Where can I find it taught where circumcision effected change in the OT?

Is your claim that baptism effects change in adults? So then are all adults who are baptized regenerate believers?


----------



## au5t1n (May 18, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell?


 
The same thing you do with all the baptized Baptist kids who professed as children and apostasized at 18 (a large number, unfortunately) -- we mourn for them that they have apostasized. We also mourn for the state of the Church that many parents in our churches do not teach their children the Word or pray with their children, but instead allow them to be indoctrinated by the world. Please join hands with us in changing this and teaching the covenant children in Presbyterian and Baptist churches the Word -- baptism or not baptism is not the problem, in my opinion.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 18, 2010)

Pergy, I think you already know this, but Presbyterians don't baptize in order to make the promises effective, but as a testimony to their reality. As for the OT promises, they certainly didn't guarantee that Israelites wouldn't defect. I think you're right to place the emphasis on parenting, but unless our children belong to a covenant, how can we raise these little unregenerates *as Christians*. 

Similar to how all Arminians are Calvinists when they pray for God to save someone, all Baptists are Presbyterians (or something similar) when they teach their children to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc. before the children make professions of faith. No one would ever suggest that we teach an unregenerate adult to do those things *as a means of* converting them.


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2010)

So, what does infant baptism really do? Nothing? What effect does it have?

The Belgic Confession 34:



> For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it-- for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.
> 
> ...




The 1689 would side with what the Belgic Confession refers to as the errors of the Anabaptists here wouldn't they? 

Otherwise we must presume that Christ has died for every child of every believer in order to believe the promises. The success rate for this promise then is not 100%.



What do you Presbyterian parents out there got that I don't have by baptising your children at birth, whereas I am waiting for a credible professsion of faith? Is there any advantage that your are accruing?


SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.


----------



## White Knight (May 18, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Similar to how all Arminians are Calvinists when they pray for God to save someone, all Baptists are Presbyterians (or something similar) when they teach their children to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc. before the children make professions of faith. No one would ever suggest that we teach an unregenerate adult to do those things *as a means of* converting them.


 
I don't want to rabbit chase, could you elaborate on the last sentence? My small mind isn't understanding. This is how I'm understanding it. When a visitor is at your church, you wouldn't teach the unregenerate man to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc?

The "as a means of" part. Please clarify


----------



## Herald (May 18, 2010)

Richard,

RB's believe that children are born unregenerate. They may be elect (future) but parents have no guarantee that their children will come to faith. However, we do believe that God works within families. Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents. Our use of the term "covenant family" would differ greatly from yours. While no parent can assume their child is saved, RB parents can possess a high confidence that their children have at least heard the Gospel. We believe it will result, more often than not, in salvation. We do not baptize unbelievers, whether adult or child, in the absence of a creidble profession of faith becase we believe that ordinance is reserved expressly for those who believe.


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.



I take it that you mean to hold to option (d) or are you proposing option (e): other?

Whatever you meant to say, I think it is important to point out that the 'what does baptism do' question is being _foisted_ upon the Reformed view of baptism. It is not an act of God in the life of the child (or adult), it is a proclamation of who God is and what He has promised. Thus baptism is a 'done': what has God done in Christ and promised to the baptized individual not what He has done, will do or might do internally by the cleansing of the blood of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit. 

For the promise itself requires faith as a response in order to be a blessing. Thus for those children who are baptized and apostatize without repentance, their baptism is of no effect except as a record against them in judgment. It is not God who failed; it was man who failed. For those who believe their baptism is a sure sign and pledge of their salvation in Christ. Anything else is a misunderstanding of covenant theology.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 18, 2010)

Pergy, the answer right in the catechism is, "Baptism does for the children of new covenant believers what circumcision did for the children of OT believers." I still don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that it is supposed to secure salvation infallibly.

Zach, my point is that we don't teach unbelieving adults how to behave like Christians to prepare them to become Christians later. We don't tell them that God is their Father, that He hears their prayers, that they should sing songs of thanksgiving for salvation, etc. Yet from the earliest age we teach our children to pray to God as their Father; we encourage them to sing the psalms and hymns that speak of how He saved us. What parent has ever stopped their 5-year-old from singing "Amazing Grace" because the child wasn't regenerated yet and couldn't sing it truly? My point is that we treat our children as Christians from the time they are born; we don't treat unbelieving adults the same way.


----------



## eqdj (May 18, 2010)

Richard,

Mark Dever recenlty preached through Mark. On March 7, 2010 he preached on Mark 10:13-16 "Children Teach Us"
I believe this sermon should answer the questions you brought up
Capitol Hill Baptist Church 

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

I'd also recommend Greg Welty's "A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism", specifically section V, 'Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined'


----------



## White Knight (May 18, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Zach, my point is that we don't teach unbelieving adults how to behave like Christians to prepare them to become Christians later. We don't tell them that God is their Father, that He hears their prayers, that they should sing songs of thanksgiving for salvation, etc. Yet from the earliest age we teach our children to pray to God as their Father; we encourage them to sing the psalms and hymns that speak of how He saved us. What parent has ever stopped their 5-year-old from singing "Amazing Grace" because the child wasn't regenerated yet and couldn't sing it truly? My point is that we treat our children as Christians from the time they are born; we don't treat unbelieving adults the same way.


 
Thank you for your time. My head just isn't on straight right now and knew it was my ignorance that was hindering me. I would be intrigued, if you had the time, to compare and contrast the difference between an unregenerate child and an unregenerate adult. Perhaps?


----------



## Herald (May 18, 2010)

I'm surprised no Baptist has brought this up. The real promise is the one contained in Acts 2. "This promise is for you, your children, and all those who are far off; as many as the Lord has called...". The promise is eternal life to all who truly believe. No one can be saved unless they first believe. A sign may point to the promise but it is not the promise. That is another reason why we only baptize those who claim to believe. We are not signifying the promise of the promise, but the promise
itself through those who claim to believe.


----------



## SemperEruditio (May 18, 2010)

Herald said:


> I'm surprised no Baptist has brought this up. The real promise is the one contained in Acts 2. "This promise is for you, your children, and all those who are far off; as many as the Lord has called...". The promise is eternal life to all who truly believe. No one can be saved unless they first believe. A sign may point to the promise but it is not the promise. That is another reason why we only baptize those who claim to believe. We are not signifying the promise of the promise, but the promise
> itself through those who claim to believe.


 
What do you do with the "_your children..._" bit?


----------



## Herald (May 18, 2010)

Frank, 

"your children" indicates the efficacy of the promise to those who believe. It has absolutely nothing to do with the promise being extended to children of believers. It is the general promise of the gospel to those who believe. In contact the word "called" us used, but the effectual call is never accomplished without faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2010)

It has nothing whatever to do with efficacy. Or else everyone who gets baptized (upon profession) would have to be saved, (i.e., be one whom the Lord our God calls).

God made the _same_ promise to Abraham. The promise was to him and to his children--as many as the Lord God would call. No one got to enjoy those promises who didn't have faith either...

So the objection, as it has been formulated, is just as much an argument against the Abrahamic promise.


----------



## Herald (May 18, 2010)

Bruce, there's a real simple answer to the Abrahamic Covenant; it is in discontinuity with the New Covenant. But we know about this difference between is (credos vs. paedos). It is for this reason I confidently and unambiguously reaffirm what I said in my previous post. Richard started this thread in order to understand the Baptist position. I gave my answer to his question; I don't expect it to be accepted. So, my purpose really isn't to debate but to explain plainly. I have done that.


----------



## Herald (May 18, 2010)

btw I'm nit trying to be obtuse, but I'm sitting here on Main St. in the Magic Kingdom (Disney World). The women are shopping and I'm surfing. I can't follow this thread to conclusion. I want that to be known if I'm slow to respond.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 18, 2010)

Hello Richard
Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.
We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.
Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.

We all agree that without faith it is impossible to believe God and the gospel promise. A promise left,becomes a curse and a *promise of judgment.*
Your "covenant child" who does not have faith that is God given cannot believe, or improve his baptism 
The baptist child who is baptized too early ie,[before the Spirit quickens him] is just as lost


----------



## Grimmson (May 19, 2010)

It is proper to connect the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the those of faith. The problem is however baptizing on the basis of the promise. I think on the Paedo end that the focus should be on the divine command and not connect the parents’ faith to the election of their children or their dying infants. The sign covenant of Abraham was given beyond to just Ishmael, but to all the men under Abraham’s household, such as slaves. A distinction that isn’t focused upon, particularily in relation to the baptism today of the head of the household. Also, I think it was important to point out that the text clear shows, before the birth of Isaac that Ishmael was not to carry the seed of the promise of Abraham, but had to receive the sign regardless of the fact that the promise was not for him in relation salvificly to the calling of God. The same is true also for Esau

Now with Baptist, such as myself, I do not focus necessarily on the discontinuity of application of the sign, but instead look at it as a type that points to the covenantal work of Christ on the cross. The reason why we do not get circumcised today, because it was to be an everlasting covenant, was because of its relation to the law and its marker to the corporate visible nation of Israel. With the clear change in sign for the church, marked by the death of Christ, it would then make sense as to who were to receive the sign by faith and by who faith. By just your own, or what about your parents. We need to be careful what we assign as a promise by God, because it is from God.

Now there should be no denying that “the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The question then is what is this promise. For that we should look at verse 38 of Acts 2. I would say the promise would be for the remission of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit to all who repent and are baptized in Christ. The promise is given to children in the same way it is for you or for those that are far off. Now I recognize that many of my Baptist brothers refuse to even allow their children to be baptized until their teens or until they are marked as adult by society. I personally think that is a mistake on their part because children are directly addressed in places like Eph. 6:1. I think children should be taught the gospel and once they can give a confession of faith, then they should be allowed to be baptized. Baptists have an issue with this because they don’t want the child’s faith to be that of the parents, but instead their own. If children are to be seen as disciples then there should be no problem, but instead expected that it matches the faith of the parents. I think the waiting for an older age, like teens, or for some emotional conversion experience takes away from the objective nature of the gospel and drives children towards a false hope. Particularly, if they don’t experience a conversion experience. 



Richard Tallach said:


> What do baptists think about all the promises in the Bible respecting children born to believers?
> 
> Do they
> 
> (a) Spiritualise them, so that they refer only to those "children" of ours that have been converted through our influence e.g. Paul calling Timothy his "son".



Yes and no.
Just as Isaac was a child of promise, so have we all that have been born of the Spirit. Salvation is not through physical descent of the flesh, whereby one is saved by the parents and by the parents faith, but through the divine calling of God to himself through the working of the preached word and the Holy Spirit. So we all spiritually look to Abraham as a father in the faith and receive that freedom by faith. 

The spiritualizing as aspect is true. Whereby children can refer to those influence by say like Paul and to those he writing to. Galatians 4:19 is an example of this, where we are called by him “little children.” But I would not say that this is the only sense that children are used. But instead shows how we and our children in faith, where the child shares in the faith, are connected to the promise of Abraham spiritually.

In regards to B) and C) certain aspects of the promise is still relevant, but only as it points to that salvation. Such as with the land promises of the OT pointing to that reality in the NT. It would be the job of believing parents to teach that to their children, and for the children to accept and believe such on faith. God’s covenant still at work, otherwise none of us would be a child of promise as we seen in Galatians 4:28. There is a shift from being in the covenant by physical birth to being in by that spiritual rebirth as sealed by the Holy Spirit and receiving the proclaimed Word of God. God is still at work in the family, children are still holy, or set apart, because of the Godly instruction they receive by the parents. Parents instruction are the means in which children embrace Christ and enter into that Covenant by the call of God. They are not initially in this covenant because of their federal relationship to Adam in the flesh resulting in that passing of original sin. Children likewise need that spiritual quickening, like their parents.

D) They would be in a sense covenantal children only after they would confess Christ. But it should be noted that Baptist typically do not use covenantal children language due to a lack of study in the covenantal nature of scripture and to some degree the dispensational hermeneutic. It should also be noted in reality, outside of the issue of baptism, children are typical taught the scripture the same way, disciplined in the same love by their parents, taught to pray, and encouraged in the faith. Shoot, many dispensational Baptists have their children sing Father Abraham. Even though I personally am not happy about that because non-baptized children are singing it. 

Baptist would focus on the giving of the ordinance of baptism, not on the promise, but on the divine command. Which is why so many of them focus on baptism being by immersion. In a sense, baptism on the basis of the divine command in relation to the confession of faith is a form of continuity with that of Genesis 17, because there a separation of the command in relation to divine election as Ishmael receiving the circumcision is an example of. This is a reality that Presbyterians many times struggle with. Therefore I would it may be best to separate the promise with election in the giving of the sign and entry into the visible church. Because we do not know who elect or not. Our only grounds for making some sort of judgment is on the confession of faith and fruit produced as a result of the work of the Spirit. 

Richard hopefully this answers your question.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> God made the _same_ promise to Abraham. The promise was to him and to his children--as many as the Lord God would call. No one got to enjoy those promises who didn't have faith either..



Bruce, I would say many enjoyed the corporate benefits of the promise that didn’t have faith. Such as with Esau and with the Israelites that entered into the land that they were promised, but lacked true faith.


----------



## Pergamum (May 19, 2010)

Poimen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.
> ...


 
Again, this promise that you believe that clings to baptism seems to be a very general promose, such that it adds nothing that I, a baptist, do not already have by raising my children under the Word (under the outward administration of the covenant), a general promise also being given to me that my children will believe if I teach them God's Word. If there is an extra promise as well that you've got in addition to mine, I do not see it as very effective.

Again, the Belgic confession seems to read that Christ died for the children of believers. I find this to be a leap.


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> Richard,
> 
> RB's believe that children are born unregenerate. They may be elect (future) but parents have no guarantee that their children will come to faith. However, we do believe that God works within families. Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents. Our use of the term "covenant family" would differ greatly from yours. While no parent can assume their child is saved, RB parents can possess a high confidence that their children have at least heard the Gospel. We believe it will result, more often than not, in salvation. We do not baptize unbelievers, whether adult or child, in the absence of a creidble profession of faith becase we believe that ordinance is reserved expressly for those who believe.



Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper. Of course, like RBs I'm sure, they may maintain that a baby may have faith from the womb, like John the Baptist. They may pray for that, but they will not know that the child has had faith from an early age until the child starts to show signs of that.



> Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents.



But this isn't mere "happenstance". It's of God's peculiar design and providence that He has placed this child within a believing family, within the Covenant of Grace in an outward sense, and open to the peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit. 

I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.

And what about the peculiar (albeit conditional) promises given to covenant families. In the Reformed Baptist schema, must these be played-down or denied?

We haven't yet entered that super-spiritual realm, when marriage, procreation and families and family ties as we know them here will be ended.


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> Hello Richard
> Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
> The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.
> We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
> ...





> The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.



Why did Peter mention "your children" (not " your believing children"), if they have no particular place in God's plan?



> We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
> We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.



But you of course believe they are holy/ set apart by physical birth, as did the Apostle? Therefore you believe in an outward and formal holiness, together with peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit, but you deny this is Covenantal, lest you become a Paedobaptist.



> We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.



Presbyterians don't believe that mere water baptism brings one into the life and love of the Covenant but that Spiritual baptism into Christ does. Water baptism alone brings one into the bond of the Covenant.

If you believe that two people can get married without loving each other, then you believe that it's possible to be in an outward and legal covenant relation without the internal reality. Special promises, privileges, responsiblities, gracious influences pertain to those born in Covenant families, and God wants them signified and sealed by baptism. 



> Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.



Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel. I'm sure those responsible were no more able to infallibly look into professors' hearts than we are.

In the case of the main stock descending from Abraham, under the Old Covenant, once again those administering the sacraments could not look into people's hearts with X-ray vision. But if the Covenant was being administered properly, there was a system of discipline, including state sanctions, which would to a large extent winnow the wicked in the Covenant from the righteous (the just) by "cutting-off" 

(a) denial of the Passover and other ceremonials, along with shunning.

(b) denial of the Passover and other ceremonials, shunning, and internal or external exile.

(c) the death penalty

(d) if the death penalty wasn't administered God sometimes promised to bring ill health and/or death in cutting-off from the Covenant, Covenant People and Covenant Land, Himself. 



> We all agree that without faith it is impossible to believe God and the gospel promise. A promise left,becomes a curse and a promise of judgment.



Those that enter the Bond of the Covenant as children or adults, are in double trouble if they don't believe, than the Muslim or Hottentot.



> Your "covenant child" who does not have faith that is God given cannot believe, or improve his baptism
> The baptist child who is baptized too early ie,[before the Spirit quickens him] is just as lost



But both have the privilege of either being baptised and/or seeing baptisms being performed, along with the Word of God and peculiar influences of the Spirit. 

So if they don't improve their baptism leading to their conversion, they're in double-trouble.

And if we don't improve our baptism after our conversion we're missing out on an important God-given spiritual resource. I'm as guilty as many of neglecting that.


----------



## Grimmson (May 19, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.
> 
> 
> 
> Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel. I'm sure those responsible were no more able to infallibly look into professors' hearts than we are.



That not completely true concerning Gentiles being engrafted to the nation of Israel. It was only the head of the household that had to make the confession of faith. And the rest of his male household had to satisfy the requirements of the law through circumcision, but needed not to necessarily provide a confession of faith. Those that did not receive the circumcision and obey the outward appearance of the law were to be shuned or killed. I do remember reading that some leniency was given to their children in regards to the practice of Judaism so that they were not killed if they did not believe, but as adults that were no longer part of the community of faith. 

“Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper.”

They do assume that their children are saved if the child died in infancy. The confession makes that clear for believing parents. Some held to Luther’s infant faith historically. For an in-house discussion, meaning within the presbyterian camp, of this I would suggest looking at Paedofaith by Richard Lusk, who is a Presbyterian pastor. I have heard its good, but have not read it myself to really weigh in an opinion. No time too. It is that aspect of infant faith that was foundational for the assumption of children salvation and a main argument against the Anabaptist regarding infant baptism. 


“I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.”

I am one. But that only because I do not equate completely the receiving of the sign with election. You can be part of the visible church and still be damned. In fact I think we have a ton of damned churchmen within the congregations of our various traditions. You can be formally and outwardly a part of the covenant community based on a confession in Baptist circles, but not necessarily be born again. That is a fact we recognize if were honest. Why would I say their in covenant with God? It is because they heard the gospel, and responded in baptism. As a result of receiving the sign they become a double child of hell, because they did not repent and was not sealed to salvation by the Holy Spirit. In fact I would go as far to say that everyone in the world in covenant with God with the order to repent. The joining of the church outside of the work of the Holy Spirit would actually be worse for such on the Day of Judgment.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 19, 2010)

Hello Richard, I did not put that red faced mad guy as a part of the post 
Thank you for your response. I see we are close on some things and approaching things from different points of view in other areas.



> “I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.”


 Believing that the New Covenant is not breakable, to say that someone is in the covenant today,[saved] then breaks it tommorow[becomes unsaved] would suggest the impossible losing of salvation.
The RB believing that regeneration brings entrance into the New Covenant and thus membership in the true or invisible church.
The idea of a non-saving covenant, [outward administration,temporary] is foreign to the RB.view. as far as the New Covenant is concerned.
Where does God make a non-saving covenant with New Covenant believers?


> Why did Peter mention "your children" (not " your believing children"), if they have no particular place in God's plan?


I see it this way;
The promise...[to partake of the resurrection life of Christ, by virtue of Spirit baptism] 
is to you....[who are convicted of your sin hearing this message]...if you believe,
and to your children.....[when they hear the gospel message and believe it by God given faith and repentance]....
and all who are afar off....[whosoever believes savingly, jew, gentile, rich, poor].....
*as many as the Lord our God shall call*....[call effectually,ie you, your children, all who are afar off as in Jn 11:50-52...the children of *God*who are scattered abroad]

I read it this way because I think the context demands the promise is in reference to Psalm 16, and this is confirmed in Acts 13:30-39.
Richard, i would like your thoughts on the Acts 13 passage,as well as acts 2:31-40 in reference to psalm 16. Why and what significance do you see in the Holy Spirit having Peter open up this passage in these two places.
this is a major teaching that is to my point of view, kind of brushed over.
it demands a closer look.



> But you of course believe they are holy/ set apart by physical birth, as did the Apostle? Therefore you believe in an outward and formal holiness, together with peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit, but you deny this is Covenantal, lest you become a Paedobaptist.


Good one Richard. I have to admit that we are very close here.Again if the Old Covenant model is to be followed, I would be speaking with Pastor Shishko in the Opcright now if the New Covenant is in and of itself is not necessarily savable, but only a "door to the house" as pastor Winzer has written I would be a padeo for sure.
If you saw the New Covenant *newness*as that the covenant is not breakable, you and most others would be part of a RB growth spurt



> Water baptism alone brings one into the bond of the Covenant.


 This can happen without the work of the Spirit, in other words? This "bond of the covenant" is something we do, not God?
or would you say that it is God working through His Church?



> Presbyterians don't believe that mere water baptism brings one into the life and love of the Covenant but that Spiritual baptism into Christ does.


 We agree here, that is why we are brothers in Christ.


> Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel



Let me ask you this.....In Romans 11 unbelieving Jews were broken off in unbelief.
Gentiles were grafted in. The gentiles who are grafted in, are they believing gentiles, or believing gentiles and their unbelieving children? or just random gentiles irrespective of whether they believe or not?
I think it is believing gentiles who are grafted in. One at a time, individually, then form part of a local assembly as members in particular.Built up a spiritual house, not a spiritual house with fleshly blemishes ,spots or wrinkles.
This last part i agree with you on:


> But both have the privilege of either being baptised and/or seeing baptisms being performed, along with the Word of God and peculiar influences of the Spirit.
> 
> So if they don't improve their baptism leading to their conversion, they're in double-trouble.
> 
> And if we don't improve our baptism after our conversion we're missing out on an important God-given spiritual resource. I'm as guilty as many of neglecting that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2010)

The _reason_ that a Presbyterian or Reformed is supposed to believe his child is in heaven is because the Bible tells him that's his _reasonable_ premise.

Now, because we KNOW ourselves to be *weak*, partly *unbelieving*, and essentially _children_ compared to God, and even to what we shall be hereafter (as Calvin aptly and frequently observed), we have been given tokens, of God's promises to us. They are these sacraments, which by sensible signs testify to the promise that Word of the gospel also declares.

Therefore, to our (paedo) understanding it is most helpful to us that we have been given not only God's promise to be God to us and to our children, but also something _tangible_ to remind us of that promise. The baptism itself says NOTHING one way or another about the person being baptized. It CANNOT, and this is true even for adults baptized, and that under either scheme (paedo, or professors-only).

We should believe the promise of God, even when there is that "echo" in the background that teaches: God still has freedom to elect.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 19, 2010)

Richard, 
In the previous post i wrote this;[If people have to be adopted as sons by the Spirit rom 8:9-14,[to be in God's family] it would seem that you would have to change your definition of the church,or claim that all of your children are actual saved children of God.

you wrote this:


> Not really. Not everyone in the Old Covenant were true children of God or of Abraham. The same is true in the New Covenant, even in Baptist churches, when adults enter the Covenant visibly by baptism (the Bond of the Covenant) and yet are not in the Covenant in their hearts.



This is one of the main areas of contention- romans 8.When I read it I see one thing,when you read it you are viewing it in a way that does not allow you to see the same thing I do. lets focus on this for a minute and see if we can at least clarify the differences a bit more.
In the previous post i mentioned the section found in Romans 8...lets look at that once again;
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 

9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 

10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 

11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 

12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 

13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 

14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 

15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
Clearly christians are in view as Paul is speaking about mortification of sin.
In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved
If any have not the Spirit- he is none of His.
They are led of The Spirit
They have received the Spirit of adoption
They mortify sin through the Spirit
They are alive from the dead

In your response in part you said this


> The same is true in the New Covenant, even in Baptist churches, when adults enter the Covenant visibly by baptism (the Bond of the Covenant) and yet are not in the Covenant in their hearts.


 This is not accurate from a RB point of view. You are importing language from the padeo teaching and mixing it with baptist teaching.
We do *not* believe adults enter the covenant visibly or invisibly by water baptism. We believe they are drawn and quickened by the Spirit, it is then that they are adopted by the Spirit,and the indwelling Spirit breaks the power of reigning sin,and begins to lead the child of God into the word of God. Remember in our position to be in the covenant is to be saved.
Water baptism is used as a testimony and public confession of Christ before men and angels, that the person being baptized is confessing that God has *already done this internal work*....not that it might happen in the future. this is why churches [baptist] require baptism for someone to be considered as a member which i think you were getting at when you said.....the bond of the covenant[ie, outward and external]

In your view at best, you cannot say that those only in "the bond of the covenant" can do any of those things listed by Paul in romans 8as i have listed above. mortification, being led,welcoming truth.
So I do not think it is accurate to say the same is true in baptist churches.



> Why is it not recognised in the New Covenant? Because we've all become more individualistic and God wants to encourage that? Because the New Covenant is so much more spiritual that the natural family can be neglected? .Today


 Israel was to be a holy nation.God placed His name there. They failed many times. that which was in shadow or type gives way to the reality.
The Israel of God now is only by new birth. If any have not the Spirit of God he is none of his. The holy nation grows. We do not become Ot saints and follow that pattern.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved


 
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." 

The New Testament repeatedly addresses itself to people for whom both threatenings and promises are necessary. Ignoring this fact distorts the counsel of God.


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2010)

I don't know when I'll get round to answering or even reading all these posts? Maybe in a few days.

The paedobaptist position seems to have a much more full-orbed understanding of the nature of the Covenant of Grace, having an outward aspect corresponding to the sacraments, and an inner aspect corresponding to the thing signified by the sacraments, and that both are not always present in the same person.


The fact that Reformed Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptised, because we're not sure they are believers - of course we can never be 100% infallibly sure that another person is a believer anyway - leads them to deny that someone who is an unbeliever could or should be water baptised and yet be in the Covenant in some sense. On the other hand some are willing to admit this.

I think the Q of improvement of baptism, as much as baptism itself, should be taken more seriously by all sides.

I think the Presbyterian position is better developed. There are clearly inner and outer aspects to the Covenant and both are important. To deny that an unbelieving adult who is baptised and/or partakes of the Lord's Supper is in some sense in the Covenant of Grace, as some Reformed Baptists do, is confusion, and yet one reason why they would oppose infant baptism.


----------



## Herald (May 20, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper. Of course, like RBs I'm sure, they may maintain that a baby may have faith from the womb, like John the Baptist. They may pray for that, but they will not know that the child has had faith from an early age until the child starts to show signs of that.



The evidence of pre-natal conversion seems to be special and extraordinary. Scripture does not present it as normative. Even the account of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) speaks more of Jeremiah's being elected by God than it does pre-natal conversion. Again, I thought this thread was started in order to understand the RB position, not to debate RB vs. Presbyterian? I've tried to keep my responses tied to the intent of the OP.



Richard Tallach said:


> But this isn't mere "happenstance". It's of God's peculiar design and providence that He has placed this child within a believing family, within the Covenant of Grace in an outward sense, and open to the peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit.



No. I have no problem with God determining to call His elect from within believing families. It certainly is logical. No one can come to faith in Christ accept through hearing and believing the Gospel. What better place is there to be exposed to the Gospel message than the family of believers? This isn't happenstance, it's part of God's plan. However this is not God's exclusive plan because unbelievers are called to faith outside of believing families all the time. So, whereas the RB understands God to work through believing families ("covenant families"), the RB understands that the real power is in the Gospel itself, which is freely offered to all.



Richard Tallach said:


> I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.
> 
> And what about the peculiar (albeit conditional) promises given to covenant families. In the Reformed Baptist schema, must these be played-down or denied?
> 
> We haven't yet entered that super-spiritual realm, when marriage, procreation and families and family ties as we know them here will be ended.



No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever could be in covenant with God. The Old Covenant contained specific promises to a specific ethnic and religious group. It was not dependent on saving faith. The New Covenant is only made with those who believe. Are there false professors who are numbered among the ranks of the New Covenant? Yes. But that is due more to our not being able to distinguish their fraudulent profession than it is to their _actually _being a member of the New Covenant. 

What promises of the Old Covenant are you referring to?


----------



## Peairtach (May 20, 2010)

> The evidence of pre-natal conversion seems to be special and extraordinary



God can do as many pre-natal conversions as He wishes, if He wished to increase their number. I don't think this is the issue between RBs and Presbyterians.



> However this is not God's exclusive plan because unbelievers are called to faith outside of believing families all the time. So, whereas the RB understands God to work through believing families ("covenant families"), the RB understands that the real power is in the Gospel itself, which is freely offered to all.



We agree that people are converted from non-believing families. But Presbyterians believe that those brought up in believing families, whether they believe or not, have a Covenantal relationship with God from birth, just as children that were engrafted into the the Covenant along with their parents had in the Abrahamic period (Covenant of Promise) and in the Old Covenant period (which Old Covenant along with the New Covenant is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant).

Of course the power to save is in God. The Q is are there any peculiar promises regarding the children in a believer's family different from the case of an unbeliever's family. To be consistent the RB would have to deny this.



> No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever could be in covenant with God. The Old Covenant contained specific promises to a specific ethnic and religious group. It was not dependent on saving faith. The New Covenant is only made with those who believe. Are there false professors who are numbered among the ranks of the New Covenant? Yes. But that is due more to our not being able to distinguish their fraudulent profession than it is to their actually being a member of the New Covenant.
> 
> What promises of the Old Covenant are you referring to?



Your first two sentences are contradictory. You should have said, "No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever [in the New Covenant period] could be in Covenant with God".

In the Old Covenant you surely ackniowledge, as you seem to here, that lots of unbelievers, and non-elect people were in covenant with God. How is this possible? The Covenant has inner and outer aspects like the sacraments which signify and seal the invisible benefits of the Covenant.

Abraham was in one sense in covenant with God before he was circumcised, and was on his way to Heaven. In another sense he did not enter into covenant with God until he was circumcised.

In one sense a married couple are in covenant when their hearts knit in love; in another sense they are not in covenant until they say, I do.

I'll get back with a list of some of the promises respecting children.


----------



## Herald (May 20, 2010)

You're right, God can perform as many pre-natal regenerations as He wishes. He is, after all, God. But He has provided clear instruction as to how regeneration normally occurs. The preaching of the Gospel, accompanied by faith (which is all the work of grace), is how a sinner is regenerated. It is for that reason that I hold to the opinion that occurrences such as John the Baptist are not normative, just as much of the book of Acts is transitionary and not normative. 

Richard, my wording was off in my previous post, but not my intent. You're right, I meant to say that no unbeliever, in the New Covenant period, could be in covenant with God. RB's believe in a completely new New Covenant, not an improved Old Covenant. By its very nature the Old Covenant was meant to become obsolete. This is part of the message of Hebrews. 

Abraham's being in covenant with God is not disputed by RB's. What we dispute is the continuity of the covenant. Abraham's true covenant inclusion was on the basis of faith (Romans 4:3). 

The marriage covenant is from creation. It is not a component part of either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant. What you are illustrating is the schematic of a covenant.


----------



## Pergamum (May 20, 2010)

Bill, concerning the continuity of the covenant then, can you compare and contrast RB views of the continuity/discontinuity of the covenant with the Zaspel/Wells-promoted view of New Covenant Theology? 

Is the basic nature of the covenant of grace then continuity or discontinuity according to RBs? (maybe this would be a good split-off post in the baptist section?)


----------



## Peairtach (May 20, 2010)

> By its very nature the Old Covenant was meant to become obsolete.



But as you know, the Abrahamic Covenant was established before the Old Covenant and included children and non-believers too.



> RB's believe in a completely new New Covenant, not an improved Old Covenant



The greater problem for the RBs is with the Abrahamic Covenant, and how you must believe that the Abrahamic Covenant has been abrogated or transformed, as well as the Old Covenant. But the Apostles do not speak of the Abrahamic Covenant waxing old and vanishing away, because the Abrahamic Covenant is foundational to the Old and New Covenants, and Abraham is becoming the father of many nations particularly in this New Covenant era.

The Abrahamic Covenant is coming into bloom in this New Covenant phase of its existence.

There's plenty evidence in the New Testament that unbelievers can be in covenant with God, at least in the outward bond of the Covenant with some accompanying common grace influences of the Holy Spirit, when unbelievers can be called "holy" (I Corinthians 7), when it is said that they are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 10:29), and numerous other places.

Christ obviously views the actions of unbelievers in baptism/being baptised and in taking the Lord's Supper as covenantal when the New Testament indicates that He holds them - more or less - to what has been done to them (baptism), what they have done (the Lord's Supper).

Being baptised/taking the Lord's Supper is not nullified or made nothing by the fact that the person is an unbeliever. If the person shouldn't be baptised or shouldn't take the Lord's Supper, such anomalous covenanting makes things worse.

In a similar way a marriage between two people who don't love one another can't be ignored. It must be acknowledged by all that a Covenant has been entered into, at least outwardly. We shouldn't say that these two are not in Covenant with each other because they don't love one another and we can ignore the marriage.

The fact that they are in Covenant must be acknowledged and if it is anomalous steps must be taken to dissolve it. Ignoring the fact that covenanting has taken place or pretending it hasn't because the inner reality isn't there is not the solution.

So you see how people can be in the Bond of a Covenant with God or man, while not having the inner aspect of such a Bond of Love.


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



"I will be your God and you will be my people" is no small thing.


----------



## Herald (May 20, 2010)

Richard,

This is where the impasse comes into play. RB's see the promises of the OC (example: "I will be their God and they will be my people") are promises that are realized fully in the NC. In fact, they must be or they would have died with the ending of the northern and southern kingdoms. Abraham's promise was based on faith. The physical sign signified what should have been an internal reality (i.e. a circumcised heart). The truth is that is just old ground that is part of a systemic disagreement. There is nothing new here. Which makes me ask, what was your purpose in starting this thead?


----------



## Peairtach (May 20, 2010)

Herald said:


> Richard,
> 
> This is where the impasse comes into play. RB's see the promises of the OC (example: "I will be there God and they will be my people") are promises that are realized fully in the NC. In fact, they must be or they would died with the ending of the northern and southern kingdoms. Abraham's promise was based on faith. The physical sign signified what should have been an internal reality (i.e. a circumcised heart). The truth is that is just old ground that is part of a systemic disagreement. There is nothing new here. Which makes me ask, what was your purpose in starting this thead?



There are many more specific promises regarding the children of believers than the above.

Nothing is often totally new on the Puritan Board. I'm interested how Baptists deal with scriptural promises respecting their children since Presbyterians would view them as Covenantal but conditional. I'll get back with a shopping list of such.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 21, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that Reformed Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptised, because we're not sure they are believers...



Let's be clear. Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptized because it is _never commanded in Scripture!_ There is _no example of it in Scripture!_ It isn't even hinted at in Scripture! 

The _"promise"_ given to "_you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"_ is _"the remission of sins"_ and the _"gift of the Holy Ghost"_ to all who will _"repent and be baptized."_

So, if you will respond to the gospel in repentance... the promise is for you!
If your children will respond to the gospel in repentance... then the promise is for them!
If all that are afar off will respond to the gospel in repentance... then the promise is for them!

And Baptism is the profession of that repentance! And repentance is the evidence of God's effectual "call."

It's just that simple.

We should no more baptize our children before they're effectually called and have repented than we should baptize _"all them that are afar off"_ before they are effectually called and repent.


----------



## Kiffin (May 21, 2010)




----------



## Peairtach (May 21, 2010)

> The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."



Why are children specifically mentioned here then?


----------



## Herald (May 21, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Why are children specifically mentioned here then?


Because it would resonate with Peter's audience that the promise wasn't just for them but also for their children and all generations following. You're reading an emphasis on children that isn't contained in the text. The emphasis is on the generational scope of "promise."


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 21, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."
> 
> 
> 
> Why are children specifically mentioned here then?


 
Peter is addressing an exclusively Jewish audience. He is contrasting "you, and to your children" (i.e. ethnic Israel) with "all that are afar off" or "μακραν" (i.e. the Gentile nations). Because the promise is no longer based on being an ethnic descendant of Abraham (i.e. "you, and to your children"), but on repentance and faith which is the new basis of Jewish identity:



> *Romans 2:28-29* - For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



Paul speaks of Gentiles as those who are "afar off" in the same way in Ephesians:



> *Ephesians 2:11-22*
> 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
> 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
> 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (μακραν)  are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
> ...



Peter & Paul are defining Israel around Jesus Christ and one's relationship to his redemptive work which is for the Jew ("you and your children"), but also for them which are afar off - "μακραν" (i.e. Gentiles). Ethnicity is of no value in this Kingdom (Cf. Mk 3:31-35) only God's effectual "call," the fruit of which is repentance and faith.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 21, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."
> 
> 
> 
> Why are children specifically mentioned here then?


 I think they are mentioned because the gospel promise is ongoing, for many generations,,you, your children[the next generation], and all who are afar off...throughout time and worldwide.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved
> ...


 
Pastor Winzer,
Hello, and thank you for this caution. When i offered this section of Romans 8, I was not offering it with a view to ignore the previous portions of Romans. Certainly if space would allow I would cut and paste Owen on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded from Romans 8:6, as a preface to this section.
I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not. Here is Youngs literal;
5For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; 

6for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit -- life and peace; 

7because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself, 

8for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. 

9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His; 

10and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness, 

11and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you. 

12So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; 

13for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live; 

14for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God; 

15for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, `Abba -- Father.' 

16The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God; 

17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ -- if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.


It seems as if a clear distinction is being drawn out between the justified and sanctified [adopted] and those who live after the flesh, as a settled habit. There does not seem to be a third class of persons addressed. This should be a source of encouragement to those who


> 1There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;
> 
> 2for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not.


 
The introductory clause (protasis) lays down the condition and the consequent clause (apodosis) is made contingent on it.


----------



## Peairtach (May 22, 2010)

Here are some of the promises I was thinking about from the ESV:-

I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread. He is ever lending generously, and his children become a blessing. (Psalm 37:25-26)

The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you. (Psalm 102:28) 


But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. (Psalm 103:17-18)

Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. (Ps 128:3)

The righteous who walks in his integrity-- blessed are his children after him!(Prov. 20:7)

And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the Lord . "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord : "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord , "from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 59:20-21)

"Therefore I still contend with you, declares the Lord , and with your children's children I will contend. (Jer 2:9)

"Why do you contend with me? You have all transgressed against me, declares the Lord . "In vain have I struck your children; they took no correction; your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.(Jeremiah 2:29-30)

"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 32:39)

"They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.(Ezek 37:25)

"And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." (Malachi 4:6)

Many more texts could be added and each one would need to be properly exegeted to show how it is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But it would be passing strange if the Lord had a care for the little ones of His people in the Old Covenant, but no particular care for them any more than the heathen in the New.

Looking up such texts has reminded me of the importance of emphasising the Covenant Generational Line/Covenant Succession, but in a careful and biblically nuanced way.

The teaching that there are multigenerational but conditional covenant promises that are peculiar to the righteous (just) as they are called in the Psalms, could be overemphasised, and in the wrong way, but I fear that it is underemphasised.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------




Iconoclast said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > > The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."
> ...



We're not saying that you don't need to be justified to be truly adopted into God's family. We're saying that God has a special place in His Covenantal administration for His people's families. But are you forced into denying even this, lest you come to close to infant baptism?

There's not a "third class" addressed here. But elsewhere in Scripture there is, and we should take a full-orbed approach to Scripture. E.g. In Jesus' parable of the Vine, there are (1) those outside the Vine, (2) those in the Vine but producing no fruit, and (3) those in the Vine and producing fruit.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 23, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not.
> ...



Yes Matthew you are right. I think I did not use the right word when i tried to express my thought.
I should have said the if is not a conditional if... The passage is speaking of only two realms, the flesh and spirit. We are found in one or the other......The life is either a self life,carnal,fleshly, leading to death, or alive spiritually bringing forth fruit to God's glory.
Although I used the wrong word in my post...[which would lead to me arguing against my own thought... The truth of the passage stands nevertheless.

Richard, your example here is again why we would differ on our understanding;


> There's not a "third class" addressed here. But elsewhere in Scripture there is, and we should take a full-orbed approach to Scripture. E.g. In Jesus' parable of the Vine, there are (1) those outside the Vine, (2) those in the Vine but producing no fruit, and (3) those in the Vine and producing fruit.


 Even if you see what looks like a "third class" in this parable, upon closer examination we must agree that there are only two persons .

More often than not this third class is made up of young persons having grown up in a believing home, or new recently professed converts to the faith.
Time, the flesh, and the devil will manifest what condition these fruitless individuals are.
1]unsaved ,never in the kingdom 
2]unsaved but yet to be savingly drawn to Christ
3] newly saved but not mature enough to show much or any evidence of of regeneration
How do you see the promise as I mentioned previously as contained in Acts 2, and again in Acts 13.i would like your response to what I posted on that earlier, if you have time to do so .Thanks

ps.Thanks for posting the list of promises regarding the fact the God many times does work through families. i have no desire to oppose any such promise.I just want to make sure that it is God who brings the promise to pass in the life of each individual he unites to His body the church


----------



## Peairtach (May 23, 2010)

*Anthony*


> Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
> The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.



Hello, Anthony. Nice to interact with our Baptist brothers.

This question of who should be baptised is partly a question of how we believe God wants us, fallible human beings, to adminster the Covenant of Grace.

Speaking extremely hypothetically, if we knew infallibly who the elect were, who Christ died for and rose again for, we would be in a very different position. Maybe God would ask us to baptise the elect only, either when they were born or when they believed.

We don't know who the elect are. The Baptists don't try to baptise the elect but those that show evidence of faith, which faith may subsequently disappoint or not. The baptists don't believe they have to find out who the elect are, which is impossible, or even to know infallibly that someone else is regenerate, which it is also not possible to know infallibly, but just that they have a credible profession of faith.

Presbyterians on the other hand don't dispute that the Covenant of Redemption is with the elect, but for the purposes of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, Presbyterians believe that God wants us to administer the Covenant slightly more broadly to those adults that have a credible profession of faith and their children.

Baptists believe that when God places a branch in His Vine, the twigs on the branch should not be put in with it. Presbyterians believe that God wants the twigs on the branch to be placed in the Visible Church, too.

Presbyterians know that the Covenant in its inner-life will only be made with the elect, but we believe, taking the Scriptures together, that this is the way God in His wisdom wants us to administer the Covenant, and that it is therefore a better way to administer it than the Baptistic view.

The New Covenant is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the administration of it God's elders cannot infallibly know who the elect Children of the Promise (Isaac) are who died and rose with Christ, and who are the reprobates (Ishmael/Esau). 

It's none of their business to try to find out who the elect are i.e. who are going to prove to be the "real" members of the Covenant of Grace, i.e. who are members of the Covenant of Redemption, but it is their duty to administer the Covenant of Grace according to the Biblical pattern.

Baptists are administering the Covenant of Grace too narrowly.

The Covenant of Grace has a duality about it, as does the Church on Earth, as do the sacraments, and as does the illustrative covenant of marriage.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> We are found in one or the other.


 
Yes; and "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7) were given necessary warnings and promises on the basis of the fact that in reality they belonged to one or the other even while the judgment of charity looked upon them and treated them as belonging to the realm of the Spirit. The new covenant administration does not do away with the reality of false professors, the real possibility of apostasy, and the instrumental use of warning to terrify the wicked and awaken the righteous.


----------



## Herald (May 24, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Here are some of the promises I was thinking about from the ESV:-
> 
> I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread. He is ever lending generously, and his children become a blessing. (Psalm 37:25-26)
> 
> ...



Richard,

It was nice of you to take the time to research some of the covenantal promises made to Israel. It should come as no surprise that RB's agree, and even affirm, each of these promises. RB's are not anti-covenantal. It's just that we understand the scope and emphasis of certain covenants and do not see a continuation of all OT covenants in the New Covenant age. In the passages you referenced there are multi-generational promises made to the nation of Israel. These promises were contingent; based on Israel's obedience. The Old Covenant was made with Israel and Israel alone. Some of the promises you quoted, such as Psalm 103:17-18, were made to Israel but contain universal truth that transcend the Covenants. Surely in the New Covenant the Lord's steadfast love is displayed towards those who keep God's commandments, with the most obvious commandment being believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. But even in that passage the emphasis is on, "to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments." In the NC age we are not keeping the Old Covenant or the Law. Christ is our covenant keeper, and doing his commandments is to believe on Him. 

The reference to children in Jeremiah 2:29-30 once again has to do with the multi-generational aspect of the Old Covenant. The promises, and the cursings, of the Old Covenant extended to the nation of Israel from generation to generation, until Christ (although some may argue it ended prior to Christ). In the Jeremiah passage we see a reckoning for sin because of the collective disobedience of the nation of Israel. There are many other passages like this in the OT. These passages emphasize the covenant responsibilities, and the failures thereof, of Israel. They pertain to Israel. Now, there are some promises in the OT, under the Old Covenant, that are future promises; not contingent on the obedience of the nation when those promises where written. The promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 come to mind. However, the nation of Israel, and religious Judaism, became obsolete upon the advent of Christ (Heb. 8:13). 




Richard Tallach said:


> Many more texts could be added and each one would need to be properly exegeted to show how it is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But it would be passing strange if the Lord had a care for the little ones of His people in the Old Covenant, but no particular care for them any more than the heathen in the New.



But this is not a biblical argument. I can respond by stating that the majority of conversions to the Christian faith do not occur within Reformed churches, or even believing churches. This means that the majority of new Christians are coming from unbelieving households. Should we therefore conclude that God had no particular care for those that are saved out of unbelieving households? Obviously that would be doing violence to the scripture and assigning suspect motives to God. The truth is that God does display particular care of his, yet, uncalled sheep. That care is the Gospel.


----------



## Peairtach (May 24, 2010)

> In the passages you referenced there are multi-generational promises made to the nation of Israel. These promises were contingent; based on Israel's obedience. The Old Covenant was made with Israel and Israel alone.



So these passages have nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant which preceded the Old Covenant and upon which the Old Covenant was based and which Abrahamic Covenant was not extinguished during the Old Covenant period nor today? God's peculiar interest in and promises regarding the children of his people extend from the Covenant He made through Moses at Sinai to the Covenant He made through Christ, but not before or after?

Before Moses God had no particular interest in the children of His people more than heathens?

After Christ God has no particular interest in the children of His people more than heathens?

From Moses to Christ God does have a peculiar interest in the Jews, and of those the children of the righteous (just) among His Covenant people, rather than the children of the wicked among His Covenant people, as it indicates in the Psalms and elsewhere?

You might also remember that "Israel" has not been dispensed with in the New Covenant. We are all engrafted into Israel and all those who have the internal covenant life (Jews and Gentiles) are called "the Israel of God".

Christ is incorporating all nations (Jews and Gentiles) into this spiritual Israel.


----------

