# Matthew's Articles



## blhowes (Apr 24, 2005)

Yesterday was a very enjoyable day. In addition to getting some work done around the house, I spent a good part of the day thinking about verses related to being 'under the law', especially:

Gal 4:4,5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 

What a blessing it is to think about Jesus being made under the law, so he could redeem us who were under the law, and adopt us. 

After supper, I decided to reread the following articles from Matthew's retraction:


My Retraction: A 15 Year Reformed Baptist Turns Paedo-Baptist
Prefatory notes on Infant Baptism
Refuting Article 1 - The Principle of Hermeneutics
Refuting Article 2 - The Importance of Baptism a Necessary Study, and Some Preliminary Considerations
Refuting Article 3 - Paedo-Baptist Thinking
Refuting Articles 4-5 - Positive Institutions
Refuting Article 6 - Christianity is not Judaism[/list=A]

I was wondering if any Baptists (or paedobaptists, for that matter), especially those fairly new to the board, have read these articles? He gives a snapshot in these articles of his thinking as he went from credo to paedo, and I was wondering if there was any part of his reasoning that you disagreed with? What he said made sense to me, but I was wondering if you disagreed with any of it?

Before going to bed, and early this morning, I read this article:
I will be a God to you and to your children after you...[/list=A]

If you're a baptist and you've read this article, was there anything in this one that you disagreed with?

Towards the end, Matthew writes:


> It is easy to misunderstand the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and its external administrations. Often Christians fall into the trap of asking the probing question, "But God, you said you would be a God to my children, but my little Betsy, or little Harry, is not saved!



It seems that, in the final analysis, paedo and credo baptists believe the same thing. Neither believe that God has given a blanket promise that all of a believer's children will be saved. Both believe that God blesses His word when parents faithfully instruct their children via the scriptures. Both believe that God's promise to Abraham will be savingly fulfilled in their children if, and only if, they are of the elect. As far as salvation is concerned, aren't both on the 'same page'?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 24, 2005)

Bob,
Even though the doctrine of election is in the forefront of our thinking, this does not and should not dismantle the level of faith we have towards what God has promised. This is exactly why *I* _presume_ when it comes to my children. This is exactly how Isaac thought when it came to Esau and Jacob. This is exactly why Abraham carried Isaac up to offer him up as sacrifice; by faith, he knew God would provide the lamb.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 24, 2005)

> Scott wrote:
> Even though the doctrine of election is in the forefront of our thinking, this does not and should not dismantle the level of faith we have towards what God has promised. This is exactly why I presume when it comes to my children. This is exactly how Isaac thought when it came to Esau and Jacob. This is exactly why Abraham carried Isaac up to offer him up as sacrifice; by faith, he knew God would provide the lamb.


You sure do have a way with words - "dismantle the level of faith we have towards what God has promised". I like that.

It makes me wonder what we as baptists (and those who once upon a time were baptists) put our faith in with regard to hoping our children will be saved. If we don't believe God's promise to Abraham was for our children the way paedobaptists believe, then, as baptists, what are the promises we can have a high level of faith in that God will save our children? To what extent, in both camps, is our level of faith in the promise(s) for our children's salvation tied to our level of obedience to God (God'll save them if we bring them to church, have family devotions, read them the Bible, etc)?


----------



## Philip A (Apr 25, 2005)

I've read most, but not all of Matt's articles. Maybe this week, since you brought it up, I'll finish off the last few.

In general, I found them quite helpful; they turned out to be quite an aid to my developing an understanding of my own position and directing me to particular sources and away from others. Specifically, the comments on hermeneutics were helpful, as well as his obervations on how convoluted much of the debate tends to be, how often the opposing sides talk past each other, and how most of the arguments are unhelpful. A classic comment on this is the following:


> Some of you long standing Congregationalists or Presbyterians reading this may be saying, "œWell of course your hermeneutic is the answer!" That´s all well and good to say, but to communicate it in a way in which you HELP the Baptist understand why you think he is interpreting the Bible with incorrect presuppositions is the key.



This, and my own experiences on the PB, have led me to conclude that most of the arguing that goes on is wasted keystrokes, and that is why I've resolved not to enter into the debate anymore. Notice how often Matt will simply respond to questions about CT by saying "you just need to go read Witsius". I know that that is frustrating, but that really is the answer. That's why I've settled down into saying "you just need to go read Coxe (whenever it makes it back into print)" or "you just need to go read Tombes". There comes a point where all of the discussion won't answer your questions, and you just need to dig in and start reading.

Matt says:


> thought I was "œReformed" but in reality, I could not escape a mild form of Dispensationalism....


After reading Matt's follow on articles, even as a baptist, I can't help but agree. I have no way (that I know of) to actually go back and read Matt's old pro-baptist articles, but it sounds like I would disagree with him on the issue just as much then as I do now. The problem is that the position that he argues against, while it may be the majority report among modern baptists, and even those who claim to be "Reformed Baptists", from my reading I cannot but conclude that it nevertheless is not the position of Coxe and the other writers of the 1689 Confession.

Herein lies the problem. The "Reformed Baptist" movement is still in its early stages. Most RB's still have a long way to go before they get back to the theology of the confession, and yes, many still hold to a mild form of Dispensationalism. The problem is that both sides in the debate misunderstand the confessional position.

If you defend a straw man, what else can you expect but to be met with straw man arguments?

Hopefully some of these ramblings make sense. If not just go read Witsius. Then go read Coxe (whenever it gets back into print). And while you're waiting for Coxe, go read Tombes. And yes, the order is important.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2005)

> I was wondering if any Baptists (or paedobaptists, for that matter), especially those fairly new to the board, have read these articles? He gives a snapshot in these articles of his thinking as he went from credo to paedo, and I was wondering if there was any part of his reasoning that you disagreed with? What he said made sense to me, but I was wondering if you disagreed with any of it?



Matt's articles and watching him debate on the board helped me "make the switch."


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> In general, I found them quite helpful; they turned out to be quite an aid to my developing an understanding of my own position and directing me to particular sources and away from others. Specifically, the comments on hermeneutics were helpful, as well as his obervations on how convoluted much of the debate tends to be, how often the opposing sides talk past each other, and how most of the arguments are unhelpful.


The part about the hermeneutics was most interesting to me. Its good to doublecheck how we read and study the Bible so we can avoid learning things that were never intended to be taught.




> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> A classic comment on this is the following:
> Quote:
> Some of you long standing Congregationalists or Presbyterians reading this may be saying, "œWell of course your hermeneutic is the answer!" That´s all well and good to say, but to communicate it in a way in which you HELP the Baptist understand why you think he is interpreting the Bible with incorrect presuppositions is the key.


I think he's done a good job writing and explaining his position change, while keeping the baptist way of thinking at the forefront of his thinking. As a baptist, I appreciate that.



> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Matt says:
> Quote:
> thought I was "œReformed" but in reality, I could not escape a mild form of Dispensationalism....


Can you almost see the panicked look on his face as this realization hit him! Its understandable that he would 'head for the hills' and seek change.

I've got to learn, when I'm reading, to do a better job suppressing my thoughts. It seems from what I had read in Matthew's articles, that with CT, there's much more emphasis on going back to the OT to understand how they (Abraham, Isaac, and their descendants) understood the covenant promises, instead of using the NT to 'shed light on the OT'. The thought came to me (and its already been cast into the depths of the sea), "This reminds me of the dispensational way of studying the Bible". 

HOW??? It was always important to look carefully at what the Jews thought, even if the scriptures seemed to contradict what they thought. This was especially true when it came to studying the kingdom. When you look carefully, you find (or we were told) that the Jews expected Jesus to establish a physical kingdom and deliver his people from the political oppression they were under. For years they expected and waited for the deliverance from their Messiah. Since he didn't do that, the kingdom was postponed to the future some 2000+ years later.

(CTers, don't worry, the thought has been rebuked and severely dealt with)


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Matt's articles and watching him debate on the board helped me "make the switch."


You may have shared this one the board already, but, as a Baptist, what was the main thing that hit you in his articles that made you see a change was called for?

In one of Matthew's articles (can't remember which offhand), he commented that when you study the Bible with emphasis on the NT interpretting the OT, you will always end up a Baptist. Do you think the same is true if you follow the hermeneutic described in the articles - that you'll always end up a CT?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > I was wondering if any Baptists (or paedobaptists, for that matter), especially those fairly new to the board, have read these articles? He gives a snapshot in these articles of his thinking as he went from credo to paedo, and I was wondering if there was any part of his reasoning that you disagreed with? What he said made sense to me, but I was wondering if you disagreed with any of it?
> ...



 --- Matt also suggested I read Witsius, which was helpful.

(BTW, I also recommend Pierre-Charles Marcel's book, "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism". Anybody here read it?)


----------

