# Question for credobaptist about Childeren of believers in the Church



## Mayflower (Jun 1, 2006)

The next question is not ment as a discussion , but i want to be informed:

* How do credobaptist consider the childeren of believers in the Church ?

*Are there credobaptist who says that childeren are covenant members (but reject that baptism came insted of circumcision), but that baptism is only for those who do a profession of faith ?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> The next question is not ment as a discussion , but i want to be informed:
> 
> * How do credobaptist consider the childeren of believers in the Church ?
> ...



As I understand them, the folks associated with the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies and the Assoc. of Reformed Baptist Churches in America (ARBCA) hold that their children are covenant children though, as baptists, they withhold baptism until profession of faith.

rsc


----------



## refbaptdude (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> The next question is not ment as a discussion , but i want to be informed:
> 
> * How do credobaptist consider the childeren of believers in the Church ?
> ...




Mayflower,

We believe that our children have great and awesome privileges by being raised in a Christian home and in the life of the church. But until our children give evidence that they are in Christ we believe that they are "œin Adam", "œchildren of the devil", "œdead in their sins", "œseparate from Christ, excluded from covenant people of God, have no hope and without God in the world" and "œon their way to hell" (Eph. 2:1-12). 

Grace to you,
Steve Clevenger


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 1, 2006)

Do you teach your children to pray (without a Mediator)?


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> ...



That very interesting to know that there are reformerd baptist who sees there childeren as covenant members. Iam very interesed to know more about this, are there any links(articels)with this view ?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Do you teach your children to pray (without a Mediator)?


----------



## refbaptdude (Jun 1, 2006)

Mayflower,

Dr. Clark is mistaken about RB´s believing that the children of believers are covenant children. It might be helpful if our brother Dr. Clark speaks with Dr. Renihan on WTS (CA) campus concerning this issue. 

Some helpful resources are:

The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc00.html

The Children of Church Members
http://www.founders.org/library/furman1.html


Soli Deo Gloria,
Steve


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 1, 2006)

That the New Covenant is only made up of professing believers is the sine qua non of Baptist thought. I know of none who would use terminology like "covenant children" or think that his children are in the covenant without them making a profession of faith. I have done no small amount of study on this issue and agree that Pastor Clevenger's view represents historic Baptist thought.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 1, 2006)

Compare the WCF and LBCF here: 

WCF 25.2 Of the Church

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.

LBCF 26.2

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> That the New Covenant is only made up of professing believers is the sine qua non of Baptist thought. I know of none who would use terminology like "covenant children" or think that his children are in the covenant without them making a profession of faith. I have done no small amount of study on this issue and agree that Pastor Clevenger's view represents historic Baptist thought.



I hope that a reformed baptist on this forum can answer me thanthe next question ; how did the first Jewish christians and Proselites would consider their childeren ? From the OT we see that childeren were included in the covenant, so does the reformed baptist believe than that this promise of childeren in the covenant stopt sinds NT ? I really hope that a reformed baptist can anwer me this ?


----------



## Herald (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> That the New Covenant is only made up of professing believers is the sine qua non of Baptist thought. I know of none who would use terminology like "covenant children" or think that his children are in the covenant without them making a profession of faith. I have done no small amount of study on this issue and agree that Pastor Clevenger's view represents historic Baptist thought.



Chris - as a reformed baptist I concur with your statement. We baptize upon a credible profession of faith. We do not recognize the term "covenant children" although we would hold to the position that children who are raised in practicing Christian homes are far more likely to come to faith in Christ. Of course there is no guarantee in either belief system (paedo or credo) that a child will come to faith in Christ.


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



Dear Bill,

I try to ask this before, and hoping that a baptist could answer me that, i hope you will do; Sinds the OT we see that childeren of believing parents are included in the covenant. For the first jewish christians this was something foundational, and we read nowhere in the NT that this promise was disappeard. So how do baptist view this, where in the NT do we read that childeren don't belong anymore in the covenant ? 

That is something that iam struggling with, because if we we started with the OT and read how God deals with families and the covenant that He established with the believers and their seed, where does it says that sinds the NT this promise is not applly anymore for the NT church ?

I know that from a baptist perspective they will started with the NT, but how do you (and other baptist) see this in the light from OT and the NT toghter ?

Also i want to added that i can understand (from a credo baptist perspective) that baptism belong only for those who have a profession of faith (and that baptism did not came insted of circumcision), but even if you do not baptize infants, that does not mean (i think) that you don't consider your childeren of believing parents as childeren of the covenant.

[Edited on 6-1-2006 by Mayflower]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Do you teach your children to pray (without a Mediator)?


----------



## Herald (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Do you teach your children to pray (without a Mediator)?



Gabe,

Does your question stem from 1 Tim. 2:5?


----------



## refbaptdude (Jun 1, 2006)

Brother Mayflower,

The two pages below contain numerous works that address your current question and a number of possible relating questions that may arise

Modern Works
http://www.founders.org/library/modern.html

Founders Works
http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html

I hope this helps : )

enjoy,
Steve


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 1, 2006)

Ralph, 

A good question.

I'm no longer a baptist but reformed. But your point is well taken for certain.

The entire existence of and force of the 10 Commandments presupposes covenant inclusion of believers children. Else honoring your father and mother is utterly meaningless. And to command obedience without grace is to legally deceive them.

Among the others, like the very first commandment which presumes God to be your God (IN salvation) and foresaking all of one's self appointed and carved idols (works) and hence driven to need calling upon Him in prayer for all things (that is to be a God to you and your children in the truest sense of the word and of the first commandment). So at the base of the 1st commandment is prayer, this commandment along with all the others presupposes and includes the children as well who are taught to pray to God not in vain as if their prayers are unheard as the unbelievers but rather heard.

Which leads to Gab's excellent question and point, which is biblically we are to teach them to pray and if we teach them to pray then it must be without a mediator other than Christ, and if it is Christ as it can only be else it is utterly vain, then they must be in the covenant, and if in the covenant then the sign belongs to them.

IF they were outside the covenant, to teach them to pray under that paradigm, would be a farce and to deceive them as if they are heard.

L

I cannot, however, answer for the credo position on this.


----------



## Herald (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Brother Mayflower,
> 
> The two pages below contain numerous works that address your current question and a number of possible relating questions that may arise
> ...



Steve - the first article (by Greg Welty) was tremendous. It answered Ralph's questions much better than I could articulate. Ralph, read the the first link that Steve posted. It should answer your questions.


----------



## bob (Jun 1, 2006)

Ralph,

The majority of Reformed Baptists that I have been associated with would not consider their children as members of the New Covenant until they would be old enough to profess faith in Christ.

They take this view from several passages that would seem to indicate that the conditions and consequently the sign of the new covenant have shifted.

Under the Old Covenant, the male babies were circumscised as physical decendants of Abraham, not as believers in Christ. . The blessings of the Abrahamic covenant had special reference to Abraham's offspring (fruitfulness, many nations from Abraham, possession of the land, and ultimate of blessing to all families of the earth). These are the blessings that circumcision signified and sealed to Abraham.

Many New Testament passages reveal that entrance into the New Covenant is through the circumcision of heart, not with circumcision done with the hands. These passage would seem to indicate that the abrogation of the shadow (the physical significance of the seed) and emphasis on the reality (the spiritual significance - circumcision of the heart.) Matt. 3:9, John 8:32-40, Gal. 3:7,9,18,29,4:28

There are numerous explicit examples of water baptism and they all specifically portray believers as being the participants. (I know that there are those who argue from the couple places where there are household baptisms that surely infants would have been included, but this is speculation only.)

I have four children under the age of 10. It remains my view that my children enter into the new covenant as the Spirit of God regenerates their heart and they give evidence of this quickening work by repenting of their sins and professing faith in Christ. I do train up my children in the way they should go, by teaching them the commandments, how to pray, to sing, and instructing them to believe in Christ. All of my children profess Christ with their mouth. The three oldest I would view as proper recipients of baptism. (The youngest is three - typically, Reformed Baptists don't baptize at such a young age, yet I personally would not be unwilling to consider such a profession.)

In regard to the sermon at Pentecost, Peter does not guarantee that salvation shall run along blood lines. Often we see quoted "and the promise shall be to you and your children" as if this was all that Peter said. Yet the verse suggests much more:

"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

The promise: "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

The condition: "Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;"

The potential recipients: "for you and your children and for all who are far off"

The effectual recipeints " as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

I do believe that God most generally works through the heritage of the family. While this may not mean that every child born to believing parent is guaranteed the saving work of God's grace or that those born to pagans have no hope, I would argue that those raised within the Christian community have "an advantage in every way."

In Christ,


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 1, 2006)

> The promise: "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> The condition: "Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;"
> 
> ...



And this is in fact accurate from that paradigm. And this is where the Gospel, honestly gets lost and buried in the conscience of the hearer, because a conditional "œto do" is heard.

And this is the big difference in an active "œrepentance" that is seen as a condition and communicated as such, it´s a matter of speech and hearin. Hence repentance is seen under that paradigm not at all different from Rome´s version, if you will, as an active quality that a man does in order to receive the free gift. Yet, true contrition, sorrow over sin, the experience of death and misery is repentance that is passive or contrition that is produced by the Gospel. True repentance is never "œseen" as an "œaction", "œactive quality" or "œcondition" to take, but happens naturally, yet is silent to the one repenting. It is a non "œaction" or "œworks" repentance. It is a true sorrow of heart. Those who think they´ve repented actively in order to receive have not truly born the weight of the holy Law so that they are broken.

Some hear the words but they don´t really "œhear". What Peter is saying is in response to the reaction of hearing Christ crucified, "œbrothers, what do we DO." And when he says "œrepent" he means not "œIF you DO this thing repentance (condition) and THEN you will receive the reward for your active work of repentance. What Peter is saying is STOP your doing, your working, there is nothing for you TO DO that can conditionally be fulfilled such that you will gain the promise (which is a hidden way to say merit reward for to conditionally gain even a promise is to really merit a reward). The stop doing and passively nakedly receiving IS the repentance, passive, unconditional, to be like suckling infants who can ONLY RECEIVE. Thus, Peter rightly includes the children of believers for they best picture the Gospel and bear witness to it best as Jesus stated (not adults taking action) for that is ALL they can do NATURALLY is receive the sign that sets forth the Gospel. Thus, the Gospel is pictured IN the baptism, especially that of infants and thus Christ said be like infants not be like adults, today we reverse Christ´s direction as a "œwitness". 

Thus, infants who later grow and confirm their faith can look back and honestly say, "œNothing in my hands did I bring when in the true sovereign providence of God did God move my parents/family, church and pastor to baptize me", for it is God Who baptizes when all is said and done and not men nor pastors who we are all but poor instruments in His hand. Then truly is the Gospel picture and truly is faith and repentance understood as naked passiveness and utter reception of an unconditional gift. Thus, is repentance rightly understood.

The gift, the Gospel, Christ crucified and risen, creates its own turning away and the very receptical, faith that receives what the Gospel freely gives "“ namely Christ alone.

Blessings In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> > Do you teach your children to pray (without a Mediator)?



This is a most important question in light of a previous response from Steve C. that wrote that the children of credo baptists are 'children of the devil'. Anyone care to tackle this? We have discussed this many times before.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I taught my children their need for a mediator. I also taught them that they needed to be reconciled to God. I also believe God rains upon the just and the unjust. I also believe everyone is born in sin and thus is in bondage to sin (or the devil if you please). Nothing but Christ can change that. He chooses whom he wills to choose and regenerates them when ever he chooses to do it. Do you think he is waiting to see if a child is going to make a decision to place faith in Him before he announces them to be children of the Devil?


[Edited on 6-2-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 1, 2006)

Well, I did talk to Jim Renihan about this at length several years ago and he's the fellow who told me that he (and others in the ARBCA) hold that their children are indeed covenant children! 

I wasn't just making up things. That's why I wrote what I did, because it is interesting and, in my experience, a little unique among RB's. 

rsc




> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Mayflower,
> 
> Dr. Clark is mistaken about RB´s believing that the children of believers are covenant children. It might be helpful if our brother Dr. Clark speaks with Dr. Renihan on WTS (CA) campus concerning this issue.
> ...


----------



## Herald (Jun 1, 2006)

Scott Bushey wrote:



> This is a most important question in light of a previous response from Steve C. that wrote that the children of credo baptists are 'children of the devil'. Anyone care to tackle this? We have discussed this many times before.






> Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.



Is the "prince of the power of the air" Satan? If so, is Paul indicating that while dead in trespasses and sins, the individual is under the dominion of Satan? And since Paul refers to such children as "children of wrath", is it not logical to conclude that all men are born under Satan's dominion? Does being born under Satan's dominion automatically make one a "child of the devil"? Is it possible to be under Satan's dominion but not be his? In an electoral sense...yes. The elect are not "children of the devil." In their unregenerate state they are under Satan's dominion. Note that Paul refers to "the sons of disobedience." He never places the unregenerate elect in that category, he contrasts them with the "sons of disobedience." But the unregenerate elect are called "children of wrath." Who's wrath? God's wrath. Will they face God's wrath? No. God rescuses them from His wrath (Eph. 2:4-7). Is this limited to children of credo families only? No. All children are born into this situation. Paul includes himself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Well, I did talk to Jim Renihan about this at length several years ago and he's the fellow who told me that he (and others in the ARBCA) hold that their children are indeed covenant children!
> 
> I wasn't just making up things. That's why I wrote what I did, because it is interesting and, in my experience, a little unique among RB's.
> ...


There are members of this board who are Credo who believe that children are covenant children also. They believe the New Covenant contains both elect and non elect. That is discussed a little in *this thread*. I am not one of them.


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bob_
> Many New Testament passages reveal that entrance into the New Covenant is through the circumcision of heart, not with circumcision done with the hands. These passage would seem to indicate that the abrogation of the shadow (the physical significance of the seed) and emphasis on the reality (the spiritual significance - circumcision of the heart.) Matt. 3:9, John 8:32-40, Gal. 3:7,9,18,29,4:28



But how does a baptist explain this ? In the OT we read that saints were circumcise in the heart (rebirth, regeration), the fleshly circumcision was pionting to a inward reality (circumcision of the heart). That does not mean that everyone who was circumcise was regerated but it was poiting to this inward relatity.

So how can Baptist explain than, that the New Covenant is through the circumcision of heart, not with circumcision done with the hands, while in the OT it was also (only, if anyone was saved at all!)) by circumcision of heart.

I don't want to kick again to the baptist position, but i want to clear this up, and hope to get respons from my baptist brothers.

Again i understand (from a baptist) perspective that childeren only get baptism through profession (in the NT we read only example's of baptism by conversion or profession) , but what i don't understand is that the baptist says that great promise that we find in almost the whole scripture (from OT until NT) that God would be also the God of our seed is not apply oanymore for the NT believers.

That is why i was very enthusiatic to read from Rev. Scott Clark, that he knew baptist brothers who considers their childeren as covenant members but baptism only by profession. But others repley that this is a mistake. Any information would be very helpfull.


----------



## Herald (Jun 2, 2006)

Ralph, I am a baptist but I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. I am in the process of studying covenant theology and may be better suited to provide you with a full response sometime later. Until then, here are my current thoughts:

Written by Mayflower:



> In the OT we read that saints were circumcise in the heart (rebirth, regeration), the fleshly circumcision was pionting to a inward reality (circumcision of the heart).



Looking forward (to Christ) this is accurate of believing O.T. saints, as it is of N.T. saints. 

Written by Mayflower:



> That does not mean that everyone who was circumcise was regerated but it was poiting to this inward relatity.



I have problems with this on multiple levels. First, circumcision was limited to males. Does that mean circumcision of the heart is limited to males? Is the new birth for males only? Secondly, how did Israel view circumcision? I am not denying the relational aspect of circumcision (to Christ), but was that the view commonly held by the Jew? Did Deut. 10:16 and 30:6 change Israel's view of circumcision? I don't believe it did. Moses was speaking metaphorically. Should it have? Absolutely. I believe a better case can be made for that point in Jer. 4:4. Unfortunately, the "inward reality" of most was that their circumcision was not of the heart but in the flesh only. 

Written by Mayflower:



> So how can Baptist explain than, that the New Covenant is through the circumcision of heart, not with circumcision done with the hands, while in the OT it was also (only, if anyone was saved at all!)) by circumcision of heart.



You're assuming a reformed baptist believes O.T. saints were not circumscized in their heart. O.T. saints were saved the way N.T. saints are saved, by faith. But is circumcision nescessary today as a sign of the New Covenant? I find that not to be the case in the following passages: RM 3:30, Gal. 2:3, RM 4:9-12; 1 Cor. 7:18-20.

[Edited on 6-2-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 3, 2006)

For those who are inressed, today i got a mail from Dr. James M. Renihan, where i ask the same question, and he repley:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just briefly to answer your question. If carefully defined, yes, I do think that it is proper to use the language of covenant children. We must be careful not to invest the term with every sense that our paedobaptist friends might want to give to it. Nevertheless, I do think that we can use it. Here are two examples from another email I recently sent to some Baptist friends here in the US:

1. Timothy and his experience ought to have much influence on our thinking. Two things seem clear to me: a. Though uncircumcised, he was a covenant child--2 Tim. 1:3-5, 3:14-15; and b. He was baptized as a believer--1 Tim. 6:11-12. (Brothers, I just don't have time or space to do all the exegesis here--I do it in my ST600 class). In my opinion, Timothy is a powerful support for our position. Like him, we should expect that our own children will be the heirs of grace. Not that this assures salvation--there will be many who are not elect--but generally speaking, more will come to faith than not. Much more could be said here . . . 
2. Acts 2:38-39. WHile this verse does not speak of infants and permit their baptism, let's not spiritualize it beyond it boundaries. In my understanding, any jewish man present to hear Peter's words would have had the right to go home and tell his children that they too could enjoy the promised blessings (the gift of the Spirit) if they believe. This IS a promise to us and our children! I can't buy the paedobaptist interpretation of the verse, but I think too often Baptists miss Peter's sense as well


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 3, 2006)

Dear Brothers,

I have been away for a while, having left in a disorderly fashion, but have returned under certain self-imposed limitations. I do ask the forgiveness of those who remember me and may have been turned off to my lack of brotherly unity in the past. But after some time away, having time to reflect on things, I wanted to jump in and start discussing with you again, but this time hopefully in a more Christian manner. Although at times, yes a heated godly debate is good. 

God is good and His mercy and kindness endure forever.

Anyway, this thread interested me since I have been struggling with this issue immensely. There have been very godly, spirit filled men from both sides of the camp, therefore I believe we ought to exercise charity on the issue. My goal is the truth. I don't really care what he said or she said at any point in history, I want to know what God says.

But I would like to make a few observations about those who claim the paedobaptist view: there seems to be a tendency for those believing parents to assume a lot about their children. This seems to lead to a false sense of security on the part of those children as they move along in years. My heart goes out to them. Now in many cases the children may have truly repented of their sin and trusted in Christ, but in many cases, I believe they have not. Many times the paedobaptist will tell you that their children do not know of any point in their life they were converted...they just know they are Christians. I have even spoken to a young man who told me this. He grew up in a Christian home and he told me that he knows of no point in his life where he was converted. He just knows he is a Christian. But isn't that assuming an awful lot? We are not Christian by natural birth but only by the new birth. We are not Christian by association or osmosis, even through our Christian parents.

Certainly if we are honest about the scriptures, there are certain truths about conversion that ought to be considered. A few ways the Bible speaks of conversion are as follows: 

1. Passing from death to life (Jn 5:24).
2. Being born again (Jn 3:3).
3. Being turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, receiving the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ (Acts 26:18).
4. Being delivered from the power of darkness and being translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13-14). 
5. Being reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
6. Being made alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).
7. Being buried with him through baptism unto death...being raised unto newness of life (Rom. 6:4).
8. Having died to the law to be married to Christ (Rom. 7:4).
9. Having been delivered from the law to serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:6).
10. Having been delivered from the wrath to come (I Thess. 1:10)


...etc.

Another observation I would like to make is this. And I'll first quote Eph. 4:5 "...one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM". If a baby is baptized, then does he need to baptized again as a believer? If he does then he has had TWO baptisms.

Also, if, as some say that baptism has replaced circumcision, was anyone in the OT circumcised twice? Once as a baby and another time as a believer?





Jeremy Walsh


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Dear Brothers,
> 
> I have been away for a while, having left in a disorderly fashion, but have returned under certain self-imposed limitations. I do ask the forgiveness of those who remember me and may have been turned off to my lack of brotherly unity in the past. But after some time away, having time to reflect on things, I wanted to jump in and start discussing with you again, but this time hopefully in a more Christian manner. Although at times, yes a heated godly debate is good.
> ...



Welcome back!

Amen & amen to the above; if what you say is true, you are to be commended!



> But I would like to make a few observations about those who claim the paedobaptist view: there seems to be a tendency for those believing parents to assume a lot about their children.



Not _assumption_ but _presumption_! Gods word states that He will be a God to us and our children, does it not? 



> This seems to lead to a false sense of security on the part of those children as they move along in years.



No more false than what I or you may have. How is your security any different? because you made an outward profession? Outward professions do not save and are not guarantees of one's position in Christ; in this, I am presuming that you are a believer and part of Christs church; this is exactly what we do with all members.



> My heart goes out to them.



In may ways, the credo baptist is more guilty. Going back to the original question, one that has been exhausted here on this board, does the credo give false assurance by praying with, encouraging their children to pray, all upon the premise that the unregenerate child can pray at all to God, without mediation. Would you pray w/ a Jehovah's Witness? Does the Holy partake of the same table as the demons? The credo baptist in this regard is hypocritical and hermeneutically inconsistent. Unregenerates are at odd with God; their father is the devil! As a former credo, I would teach my children to pray the Lords prayer. They would call God, "father"; this is blasphemous and a lie; shame on me! 



> Now in many cases the children may have truly repented of their sin and trusted in Christ, but in many cases, I believe they have not.



Jeremy,
This is an assertion that none of us can make. It is opinion. 



> Many times the paedobaptist will tell you that their children do not know of any point in their life they were converted...they just know they are Christians.



To understand the statement, one needs to understand how Gods covenant works. I ask you, was Esau, was Ishmael in covenant w/ God?



> I have even spoken to a young man who told me this. He grew up in a Christian home and he told me that he knows of no point in his life where he was converted. He just knows he is a Christian. But isn't that assuming an awful lot?



Has this young man proved otherwise? 




> We are not Christian by natural birth but only by the new birth. We are not Christian by association or osmosis, even through our Christian parents.



This is true. How does this conflict with Gods word? The infant is not above regeneration. 




> Certainly if we are honest about the scriptures, there are certain truths about conversion that ought to be considered. A few ways the Bible speaks of conversion are as follows:
> 
> 1. Passing from death to life (Jn 5:24).
> 2. Being born again (Jn 3:3).
> ...



Why can an infant not possess these things? Can the imbecile? 



> Another observation I would like to make is this. And I'll first quote Eph. 4:5 "...one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM". If a baby is baptized, then does he need to baptized again as a believer? If he does then he has had TWO baptisms.



Why would he need to be re baptized? 



> Also, if, as some say that baptism has replaced circumcision, was anyone in the OT circumcised twice? Once as a baby and another time as a believer?



Thats the point Jeremy. Men have always been saved the same way; whether OT or NT is irrelevant. The same gospel was preached to Abraham. The sign that is to be placed was commanded by God, to Abraham. Gods word states that that command, to place that sign on our children is eternal, else be cut off. May God be true and every man a liar! Sadly, those that do not hold their circumcision/baptism in the highest regard, improve upon, perfect, are no less than Judas' and will find themselves apostate, hanging from the tree in the lake of fire.





[Edited on 6-3-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 3, 2006)

Please provide one New Testament reference to an infant being baptized ______.

I guess Charles Spurgeon is in hell right now. He opposed paedobaptism pretty strongly. Yet somehow, many people came to Christ through this apostate's preaching.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Please provide one New Testament reference to an infant being baptized ______.
> 
> I guess Charles Spurgeon is in hell right now. He opposed paedobaptism pretty strongly. Yet somehow, many people came to Christ through this apostate's preaching.



Jeremy,
To begin with, your hermeneutic is flawed in that you have excluded all of the OT in your statement above. Placing the sign upon an infant has to do with an eternal command of God originating in the OT and carried over into the New. Thinking like a Jew, show me the positive command that infants are now excluded from such a benefit. Also, God said that this command was eternal, was He lying? The burden of proof is upon you as the whole of the OT demands placing the sign; this is exactly why the paedobaptist responds in such a manner. No positive command abrogating the principle. You are aware that there are examples of _families_ being baptised? Families have infants and young children! As well, you have not one example in the NT of a child coming to faith, i.e. Johns son came to faith at a young age and was baptised. Scott and Tina's daughter Zoe came to faith at 15 years old and was baptized. Why is that? 

As far as Spurgeon goes, I never said HE apostasized. I was referring to the paedobaptist who does not hold fast their confession and perfect their baptism. So, I have no idea what you mean by that??? For the record, God will use even devils to bring His elect to Himself. * Not saying that Spurgeon was a devil.

The reason Spurgeon rejected paedobaptism is because he had a flawed hermeneutic as well and was dispensational.

PS: You didn't interact with my responses above. Care to do so?


[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> ...




1. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

2. My security is based on the finished work of Christ and the promise that He has made to save me. I am counted righteous in Christ because I have placed my faith in the divine promise and I deem God to be capable of doing what He promised (Rom. 4:20-25). My confidence and security are in Him and are evidenced within me by the witness of the Holy Spirit (I John 5:10). Outward professions are not the issue in saving faith, neither are physical signs, but rather a broken and a contrite heart that is ready to receive the kingdom of God like a little child. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

3. You condemn your former way of thinking for trying to get your kids to call God Father and you confess they were at the same time of the devil. How do you then turn around and say that children of the devil have a basis for a sense of security because they are under a "covenant" of baptism? They are still unregenerate as infants aren't they? Surely you don't think that if you baptize them they become believers due to your "obedience"? If you baptize them, are they allowed to then pray to God even though they never personally exercised faith in Christ? You said before that I have no more reason to believe I am secure than one of these children of the devil even though I am born again and know it.

4. It is an opinion, that's why I used the words "I believe." But it's a pretty good assumption, isn't it? There are plenty of kids who think God has grandchildren.

5. According to Gen. 17, Abraham had everyone in his house, including Ishmael circumcised, even those who were bought with money from a foreigner. As far as being in a saving covenant with God, I'm not sure about this whole point. I just know that Galatians teaches us that Isaac and Ishmael served as an allegory to show the difference between the law and the gospel. One produces bondage, the other produces freedom. And my question to those kids who think they're saved because they grew up in a Christian home is this...how do you know? Because you were baptized as a baby and you think you are in an inherited covenant with God, even though you never personally repented of your sin and called on the Lord for mercy? Is it because you never did anything overtly sinful in your life? Thou hypocrite, thy father the devil hath deceived you just as he did your forefathers the Pharisees. 

6. Yes, the young man did prove otherwise by his own words, because he had a self-righteous attitude and told me about how he never really was that overt sinner his neighbor was. Such is not a spirit of brokenness and contrition before God.

7. If we are referring to those infants who die in their infancy, one cannot logically believe they will go to heaven unless they believe in the Sovereignty of God. If God were to so choose that the child be taken of his life at that age, then we leave it to God what He would do with him. Because I believe and know God to be Sovereign, I believe that these children are covered under His grace. But there is no reference anywhere in scripture to an infant who is born again in the sense we would apply to ourselves. They are unable to believe in the same way an imbecile is. But God has prerogative to save them. But a child whom God has decreed would grow to full age must be therefore brought to repentance and saving faith and thus be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, even as they. When it comes to these types of issues which no one truly knows but God, we should probably go with what Jesus said to Peter, "What is that to you? You follow Me?" Jn. 21:22


8. The child would need to be baptized as a believer, wouldn't he, as a sign that he has been buried with Christ and risen unto a new life? Because Christ commanded it in the great commission. To be honest with you, the whole paedobaptist view is a fine way to get kids to disobey the commandment of God to be baptized as a sign of their faith in Christ.

9. "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." -Gen. 17:13-14
a) But if you read Galatians, Paul pronounced the curse of God on those who still pushed for circumcision. Why did he not then answer with the simple response, "Because it's been replaced by baptism." No. His argument was for faith in Jesus Christ apart from the law entirely. Isn't that the New Testament revelation? The righteousness of God apart from the law. And didn't the New Testament writers argue that God's redemptive plan went beyond Israel to all peoples and to the ends of the earth?
b) The Jews could not comprehend the idea that a Gentile could be saved apart from the law and circumcision. They no doubt held to texts such as Genesis 17. 
c) Romans 2 states plainly that the Gentiles do not have the law in written code. That law was given to Israel. In God's eyes, the greater of the two was the believing Gentile, who not having the law in the way the Jews did, but actually had it written in their heart.
d) I guess I misunderstood your little anathema you pronounced. I thought you were condemning me to hell because my 2 year old hasn't been baptized. If I misunderstood you I'm sorry. But it seems to me you are saying that if one holds the conviction that they are to baptize their children as under the law and do not do so, they will be damned. I would have to agree. If you place yourself under the OT law, even in a Christianized form, you are condemning yourself if you do not keep it to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you at this particular point here. The main concern though is this...if this were a requirement under the New Covenant, then it would be specified in the New Covenant. Don't make that which is waxing old and ready to vanish away superior to the New. 

Just remember, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." "“Rom. 10:4

-Jeremy


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 4, 2006)

Jeremy,
I have been through this all here on the board many times; I will just say this without meaning to be disrespectful. You do not understand 1) _covenant_ nor 2) covenant theology. If you did, you would see Gods word differently. Your whole outlook would change if you just understood 'covenant'. For instance, Gods word says that he will never destroy the earth again with water; 

Genesis 9:11-17 11 "And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "And it shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth." 

This was a covenant he made w/ Noah and mankind. Do you doubt this for a second that he will never again destroy the earth with water? No! But when we are talking about His _eternal_ covenant, you doubt! Even though he Himself said it was eternal! You make God out to be a liar. 



> d) I guess I misunderstood your little anathema you pronounced. I thought you were condemning me to hell because my 2 year old hasn't been baptized.



The WCF summarizes scripture and states:

V. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance*,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23


Gods word says:

Genesis 17:10-14 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 *"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."*




> If I misunderstood you I'm sorry. But it seems to me you are saying that if one holds the conviction that they are to baptize their children



I am!



> .......as under the law



The command is not part of the ceremonial law.



> .......and do not do so, they will be damned. I would have to agree. If you place yourself under the OT law, even in a Christianized form, you are condemning yourself if you do not keep it to the letter.



Christianized form??? Thats a new term! Is the law abrogated Jeremy? You never answered my earlier question; How were men in the OT saved? Is this what Paul meant in Galatians? The distinction needs to be made in regards to the ceremonial aspect of Gods law and the moral command. Apparently, you've confused the two or have not made the distinction. Question: Does the book of James contradict the book of Romans? No. Get it? 

I will end this with this, study the above and get back to me in another 6 months. Read Calvin on circumcision/paedobaptism. Read Owen, Edwards and Poole and then lets talk. It's silly to go step by step through this stuff; especially when you have obvious presuppositional barriers in the way from dispensationalism etc. all attached. If you say you want to know the truth, release your presups, abandon any specific position for the time being and read the stuff I suggest.

Have a great Lords day.

Scott



[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 4, 2006)

Scott,

First of all, we aren't acting like Christians. I'm not impressed with your attitude or mine. Although you said you were ending the discussion because I obviously don't understand the gospel (and in many points of theology, I am quite deficient), I must in all good conscience respond to these charges.

First of all, I don't appreciate the way you have tried to belittle my understanding of the Word of God. I don't have a lot of background with covenant theology, but I'm not the first child of God to oppose infant baptism. I'm not some Lone Ranger. I'm very cautious about it, because I would hate to add to the gospel of Christ or put words in God's mouth. I DO want the truth about this. But I'm not about to let you belittle me in an unChristlike manner.

Aside from your reference to the WCF, which scriptures it cites give no statement that Baptism has replaced circumcision, you still have given me 0 passages of scripture stating we ought to baptize a baby, because there are none. And you want me to go away for 6 months and study the words of men? You hypocrite. 

I already stated plainly that I couldn't care less what other people have already said about it. The bottom line is...there is not one New Testament reference to infant baptism. If it really were a great and heinous sin to neglect such an ordinance, it would be in the New Testament. This is why you keep going back to the OT and you are frustrated. But Paul new the law like the back of his hand and he never mentioned a thing about circumcision somehow being replaced by baptism. God told Abraham that CIRCUMCISION was an everlasting covenant with him. But that didn't mean the particular ordinance would be required of all people forever. 

As far as Old Testament salvation, believers were saved by grace through faith. In the New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith. Faith in the promise of God to save them (Rom. 4:20-25). We are "kept by the power of God through faith". God says "...thou shalt be saved." What could be better than the promise of God? He cannot lie. When I put all my hope in the promise of God then I entered into a covenant with God in which He has sworn to save me and I have agreed to trust Him. He is able to save and will do it because long ago Christ had already done it on the cross. My faith does not effecate the saving blood of Jesus, but rather receives what He has already purchased for me. And praise God, even at those difficult times in life when I am riddled with unbelief, God is still faithful to His promise, he cannot deny Himself.

Well, I must say, this has been an interesting discussion. I never knew that it could turn into such a big deal. My suggestion is though that you work on having a humble, Christlike attitude with those who disagree with you (I will too). I don't assume I know everything and if I come across as being so, then I'm sorry. Just please don't assume you know it all. 

A question I would ask you is this...has God graced your life yet to the point where you have been able to lead someone else to faith in Jesus Christ? I hope so. Because that is what matters, other people, not your fine points of theology. 

May God bless you,

Jeremy


----------



## Herald (Jun 5, 2006)

Jeremy,

My reasons for participating on the PB are manifold. It has stretched my knowledge in key theological areas. I have been humbled (by my ignorance), confirmed (in some theological positions) and changed (in other theological areas). I have also disagreed with some of my fellow PB members. That includes those who run the board. My disagreements have always been theological in nature, not personal. I have made a "covenant" with myself that I will not air any personal accusations or comments. If I am that upset with a particular brother, I will email them directly. The conversation will be had off-line. There is no edifying reason why a personal disagreement among brothers should be aired on this board. Theological disagreement? Certainly. That is the spirit of debate. Personal? Go to your brother privately. Don't call them a hypocrite in an open forum. At best, it harms a fellow brother in Christ in front of all. At worst, it is slanderous and divides the body of Christ. 

You made the following statement in your first post:



> I have been away for a while, having left in a disorderly fashion, but have returned under certain self-imposed limitations. I do ask the forgiveness of those who remember me and may have been turned off to my lack of brotherly unity in the past. But after some time away, having time to reflect on things, I wanted to jump in and start discussing with you again, but this time hopefully in a more Christian manner. Although at times, yes a heated godly debate is good.



My friend, I think you need to read your words again. For some reason you seem to be drawn to extreme reactions during debate. Those reactions seem to transcend your passion for the topic at hand. The result? The discussion lacks grace and turns personal. Our words are a reflection of what we hold most dear. Paul wrote:



> Ephesians 4:29 29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear.



The word for "unwholesome" is _"sapros."_ It means "rotten or worthless." I have uttered more unwholesome words during my lifetime than I care to admit. I have been guilty of terrible things with my mouth. I know the pain that is caused by careless words. The scripture tells me:



> Matthew 12:36-37 36 "And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned."



Jeremy, as I _slowly_ and _thoughtfully_ write these words I pray they are well received. The PB can be a blessing for some. I pray it is a blessing for you and that we will, in turn, be blessed by your words. May I admonish you to settle whatever issue(s) remain between brother Scott and yourself _offline_ so that we spend our time on the PB encouraging one another and fulfilling our quest to seek the truth of God's word?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Scott,
> 
> First of all, we aren't acting like Christians.



Speak for yourself. Jesus spoke the truth in love; I follow his lead.



> I'm not impressed with your attitude or mine. Although you said you were ending the discussion because I obviously don't understand the gospel (and in many points of theology, I am quite deficient), I must in all good conscience respond to these charges.



Feel free.



> First of all, I don't appreciate the way you have tried to belittle my understanding of the Word of God.



I recall prefacing my statement with:


> I will just say this without meaning to be disrespectful



You've essentially called me a liar; i was meaning to be disrespectful? 

Your understanding: Well, lets see; You've hyper-dispensationalized Gods word, you don't understand covenant or C. Theology, You don't understand the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial and seem to imply that Gods law is abrogated, and you want to talk about infant baptism.  

I've asked you more than once if Gods "OT Law" is abrogated? Is it?




> I don't have a lot of background with covenant theology, but I'm not the first child of God to oppose infant baptism.



This is true. How can you oppose something you don't understand? You have positioned yourself br default. This is sad. How can one choose a position when one has only one side?



> I'm not some Lone Ranger. I'm very cautious about it, because I would hate to add to the gospel of Christ or put words in God's mouth. I DO want the truth about this. But I'm not about to let you belittle me in an unChristlike manner.



Exhorting you to study the topic for 6 months is belittling? Don't study the topic then; remain in the quandry.



> Aside from your reference to the WCF, which scriptures it cites give no statement that Baptism has replaced circumcision, you still have given me 0 passages of scripture stating we ought to baptize a baby, because there are none.



Show me one passage in the NT abrogating the command. Do you tithe; the NT is silent on that issue; Does your wife take the supper? The NT is silent on this as well. You better remain consistant and stop tithing as well as allowing your wife to partake of the supper!




> And you want me to go away for 6 months and study the words of men? You hypocrite.



Hypocrite? How is what I suggest, hypocrisy? Nice.



> I already stated plainly that I couldn't care less what other people have already said about it.



See, you do not want to learn, you want to argue. This discussion is over.




> The bottom line is...there is not one New Testament reference to infant baptism. If it really were a great and heinous sin to neglect such an ordinance, it would be in the New Testament.



It is IN Gods bible. The NT and OT are only seperated by a page. They are not seperate books,



> This is why you keep going back to the OT and you are frustrated.



I keep going back to the OT because it is the reference point and part of Gods word. You have hyperly dispennsationalized Gods word. Where have you been for 6 months? Over w/ the New Covenant Theologians?



> But Paul new the law like the back of his hand and he never mentioned a thing about circumcision somehow being replaced by baptism.



He never mentioned the sabbath changing to the first day of the week as well. I guess you will have to remain consistant again and go to church ion Saturday now.



> God told Abraham that CIRCUMCISION was an everlasting covenant with him. But that didn't mean the particular ordinance would be required of all people forever.



What don't you understand here:

Genesis 17:10-13 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:7 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Isaiah 59:21 21 "And as for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor Isaiah 59:21 from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever."


Questions:
1) Has God commanded that a sign be placed?
2) Has God promised this covenant to be eternal?
3) Has the NT abrogated the command?





> As far as Old Testament salvation, believers were saved by grace through faith. In the New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith. Faith in the promise of God to save them (Rom. 4:20-25). We are "kept by the power of God through faith". God says "...thou shalt be saved." What could be better than the promise of God? He cannot lie. When I put all my hope in the promise of God then I entered into a covenant with God in which He has sworn to save me and I have agreed to trust Him. He is able to save and will do it because long ago Christ had already done it on the cross. My faith does not effecate the saving blood of Jesus, but rather receives what He has already purchased for me. And praise God, even at those difficult times in life when I am riddled with unbelief, God is still faithful to His promise, he cannot deny Himself.



Ok. 



> Well, I must say, this has been an interesting discussion. I never knew that it could turn into such a big deal. My suggestion is though that you work on having a humble, Christlike attitude with those who disagree with you (I will too). I don't assume I know everything and if I come across as being so, then I'm sorry. Just please don't assume you know it all.



Sounds like you're assuming I think I know it all. You yourself admitted you are not schooled in CT; so, the suggestion stands, gostudy the men I suggested and lets talk then.



> A question I would ask you is this...has God graced your life yet to the point where you have been able to lead someone else to faith in Jesus Christ? I hope so. Because that is what matters, other people, not your fine points of theology.



Yes he has, and no, you're wrong about theology. Because of the ineptitude of the _teachers_ out there, Gods people perish for lack of knowledge.



And for the record, I have discussions like this everyday on the board. This is not necessarily unChritian-like. It is iron sharpening iron. As I have mentioned before. metal gets hot, sparks fly and heat exchanged. This does not stumble me nor cause me to doubt. I learn and know Christ better because of all of it. You must again ask yourself, is this good for me?

Scott


[Edited on 6-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------

