Talk about Grandstanding Rich. You make assumptions and charges that have basis in your thinking but not necessarily in reality.
Reality is what we're determining here Randy. We're determining if the two can be "meshed". If you follow the thread what I am noting is the dissonance between the love that Baptists show toward their children and the things they do for them that do not have a place in their Systematic insistence about the unregenerate at large. The ire you are experiencing is a man repeating back to you what Baptists say of children in general and that they have zero claim to spiritual things.
You sure talk stronger than you like to be talked to also. You could tone it down a bit.
Sometimes true. I don't believe I've been harsh in my tone in this thread.
Your representations of Baptists and their Children are lacking concerning my life. My children were born children of wrath till they put on Christ or till faith became assent and trust in the Saviour.
That is toning it down? What if you are wrong concerning your children? What if they had faith before they could articulate it with an adult understanding? If salvation is not of him who wills and him who runs but of him who shows mercy then you just undermined that notion for, indeed, by your statement the lads were
certainly objects of wrath on the basis of their intellectual capacity.
You see, to me, this is an example of the "tone" that I'm repeating that causes so much consternation.
I am not assuming they are reprobate "minors' as you seem to claim we are declaring but we are claiming they are born in sin and need to repent and believe so that they may be just like faithful Abraham.
I didn't use the word reprobate. I used unregenerate.
Plus we are telling the whole world to repent and be baptised. As Luke recorded in Acts God now commands every man everywhere to repent. We are commanded to admonish our children in the Lord. We are not commanded to lie to them and say they are in the everlasting Covenant with God without them repenting, believing, and confessing. If they respond to the Gospel by repenting, believing, calling upon the Lord and Confessing Christ then we should give them assurances based upon God's word.
Now, who is ratcheting up the dialogue Randy. Lie to them?
As to "how" you developed this theology on how you're commanded to admonish our children in the Lord - is what you just presented the instruction that God has given us concerning our children? Again, you acknowledge a difference between neighbor and child by a specific command but then you just applied a general principle about neighbors. Where would you go in Scripture that says that you are just supposed to train a child by proclaiming the Gospel to him just like you would a neighbor?
Another thing. I am personally charged with raising my Kids to know about God and their responsibility to Him. I am personally charged with this responsibility to a greater degree than I am to my neighbour. That does not necessarily place them in any covenant though.
So, again, their relationship to God is somehow different but you just can't seem to define how other than the fact that they are somehow "responsibility" to Him. Are they under any obligation to obey you? Why does Paul tell them to obey you if they are not in
any Covenant? What authority does Paul have to command them?
The only relationship my children have with the church is that they grew up in her shadow. Just as the Church is responsible to Proclaim the Gospel to the World they are responsible for making sure I am doing my job in admonishing them also. My children are growing up in her shadow and mine but not necessarily in her Covenant with God. We have already discussed the Covenant of Circumcision and that it is not fully the Covenant of Grace.
Again, I hate to be blunt Randy, but this is another "ad-hoc" presentation. Where in the NT do you find this? Where did you go to develop this last paragraph? You see, I find it fascinating that you acknowledge that God has given you greater responsibilities toward them to admonish them in the Lord but you have absolutely no idea what that
specifically means other than to put together a general idea based on the fact that they are of the mass of unregenerate humanity but that you have authority over them.
You have also claimed that you would find it "mysterious" the way we treat any member of our Church as if they are saved. Well you guys do it also when you look for Elders and deacons. And maybe you lack the need to discern where a brother is because you consider all who are in the Church as covenant members, whether in Christ or not. That is mysterious to me. We can lay the same charges against you.
If you note the context of that reply to Doug then you would note that my point is that it is a Baptistic bifurcation of membership I was challenging. This is why I noted that Doug ought to check out the recent thread about crisis conversion. It's really the Baptist that tries to pin the tail on the regenerated guy and not me. My point is that, since you guys are insisting on regeneration, then
to be consistent you would have to cast a wary eye toward all. I was highlighting another incoherence to a typical systematic presentation where you will start by insisting that paedobaptists are monstrously assuming their children to not be unregenerate but then don't consider it monstrous that you are presuming a professor is regenerate. In other words, you guys don't eat your own dog food.
My point is that I wish you would tone down a bit and try to find out more without as much accusation. I think you misrepresent us sometimes and unnecessarily when you are trying to get at the facts, or trying to get us to see our supposed inconsistencies.
And I would suggest that I can improve but that much of the ire is actually hearing your systematic theology put into a practical mold. Just as above when you missed the whole point about the "mystery", it is my belief that the dissonance between your systematics and practice creates a tension that you guys get irked about when I press you on it.
Sorry if my thoughts are just thrown together.
Well, that was my point.
