1 Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bonda

Status
Not open for further replies.
. Some of the early church fathers were baptized as adults, but not because they were against infant baptism. Rather, they had a faulty belief in baptismal regeneration, so they often thought it best to wait until just before death to be baptized. Or at the very least, as Tertullian suggested, they thought a person should wait until it's not so easy to be tempted by sin (like during puberty), and then to be baptized afterwards.

Are you absolutely sure this fits all cases Joe?
Do you truly think this was Monica's reason for not baptizing Augustine or why Gregory Nazianzen wasn't baptized as an infant by his father who was a bishop? Was that also the reason why Chrysostom wasn't baptized until he was 21 even though he was raised by Christian parents and educated by a Bishop Meletius?

What happened to the idea of Federal theology and Covenant baptism for infants?

Plus, I will read the books you recommended. I love reading books pitted against each other. Do you remember the Lordship Controversey and how Zondervan pitted Hodges and Ryrie against MacArthur? It was fun. I loved picking Ryrie apart. He even took Calvin's Institutes out of context. He was reading some obsure translation of Calvin I hadn't heard of yet. I am not much of a B.S.er. I may get lost in my thoughts pretty easy, but I will do what I say.

[Edited on 7/14/2005 by fredtgreco]
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Are you absolutely sure this fits all cases Joe?
Do you truly think this was Monica's reason for not baptizing Augustine or why Gregory Nazianzen wasn't baptized as an infant by his father who was a bishop? Was that also the reason why Chrysostom wasn't baptized until he was 21 even though he was raised by Christian parents and educated by a Bishop Meletius?

I remember that Joachim Jeremias deals with these questions in his 2 books on paedobaptism in early church history. But I'll have to go back and re-read what he said about these particular cases.


Originally posted by puritancovenanter

What happened to the idea of Federal theology and Covenant baptism for infants?

Apparently it was drowned out by the heresy of baptismal regeneration.

But the ideas of Covenant continuity and the close connection between circumcision and baptism were definitely understood in the early church. There is no question about that.

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Plus, I will read the books you recommended. I love reading books pitted against each other. Do you remember the Lordship Controversey and how Zondervan pitted Hodges and Ryrie against MacArthur? It was fun. I loved picking Ryrie apart. He even took Calvin's Institutes out of context. He was reading some obsure translation of Calvin I hadn't heard of yet. I am not much of a B.S.er. I may get lost in my thoughts pretty easy, but I will do what I say.

Thank you! I am thankful you are willing to read both sides. I am like you in that way! I have either read, or am reading, approximately 20 different books either for or against infant baptism. I have done (and am doing) my homework.

While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it. Check out this excerpt from the back cover of the book:

. . . The author's vindication of the doctrine of infant baptism is the more impressive because it does not rely upon archaeological or patristic evidence about the practice of the early Church - convincing as that evidence may be - but on the evidence of Scripture.

Pierre builds the Biblical case very soundly, starting with the general Biblical doctrine of sacraments, the Covenant of Grace, and the meaning of adult baptism. Only then, near the end of the book, does he talk about infant baptism. He presents a very solid case from the Scriptures alone, without even bringing Church history into the argument.

Cheers in your reading endeavors!
 
Originally posted by Dan....
I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:

...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - free to remarry, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means not bound.

In an attempt to come back to topic, I would simply ask this: if "not bound" does not mean "free to remarry," then what does it mean? The only suggestion I saw was "free to not have conjugal relations with the deserted spouse," a thing that would not need an apostolic pronouncement. So what does it mean?
 
Have rogue unprintable characters been introduced onto this thread? I'm getting really ____WIDE____ pages here only. Can one of the ADMINS zap it?
 
I remember that Joachim Jeremias deals with these questions in his 2 books on paedobaptism in early church history. But I'll have to go back and re-read what he said about these particular cases.

I think I will read it along with Baptism in the Early Church. I am sure they can be pitted against each other. Someone aint right ya know.

I bought the Beasley-Murry book but loaned it out about 20 years ago and never got it back. Tell me what you think when you are done.
While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.

I am one that tries to post links to books. Please post me links to the books you recommend. It is very helpful.


Pierre builds the Biblical case very soundly, starting with the general Biblical doctrine of sacraments, the Covenant of Grace, and the meaning of adult baptism. Only then, near the end of the book, does he talk about infant baptism. He presents a very solid case from the Scriptures alone, without even bringing Church history into the argument.

I believe Fred Malone did a pretty good job in Baptism for Disciples Alone even though many on this forum disagree.
 
Sorry we got so far off topic.......

I think moralism is good as long as it is Biblical Colleen. Baptismal regeneration is an example of how the early church fathers got off. Augustine also pushed for life long celebacy which I believe is quite exteme. I know St. Paul encouraged it. But he also saw that marriage was of God. Jesus himself addressed remarriage. Not reespousal. I think we need to stick as close to the Scriptures on this topic as we can. I believe the Westminster's and my cradle churches conclusions are biblical.

Be Encouraged, Randy
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter

I believe Fred Malone did a pretty good job in Baptism for Disciples Alone even though many on this forum disagree.

With all due respect, I think that book was very poorly written. There is so much that he doesn't even address in the first place, much less soundly address. (For example, he doesn't even bother to deal with the close tie between Acts 2 and Joel 2, and he thus wrongly assumes that Acts 2 says something about Gentiles . . . a clumsy mistake that wrecks some of his exegesis.)

Have you taken the time to read Dr. McMahon's book review of "Baptism for Disciples Alone"? Here is a link to it: http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm

Please let me know what you think of Malone's book, after you have read Matt's critique of it.


In my opinion, the best available credobaptism book is "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" by Paul K. Jewett. He does a much better job than Malone, in my opinion.

(Of course, I still end up disagreeing with Jewett at the end of the day. . . . but that Jewett book kept me a convinced credobaptist for quite a while, before I met Dr. McMahon and apuritansmind.com.)
 
Originally posted by BrianBowman
Have rogue unprintable characters been introduced onto this thread? I'm getting really ____WIDE____ pages here only. Can one of the ADMINS zap it?

Done.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.

I am one that tries to post links to books. Please post me links to the books you recommend. It is very helpful.

I will gladly do so.

Since we are so wildly off-topic, I posted links for recommended books over in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11895&page=2


[Edited on 7-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Joseph wrote:-

With all due respect, I think that book was very poorly written. There is so much that he doesn't even address in the first place, much less soundly address. (For example, he doesn't even bother to deal with the close tie between Acts 2 and Joel 2, and he thus wrongly assumes that Acts 2 says something about Gentiles . . . a clumsy mistake that wrecks some of his exegesis.)

First of all, Malone's book is written at the popular level. If you want to read more detailed stuff, you need the 'Reformed Baptist theological Review' www.rbtr.org There is a lot of more heavy-weight reading there, including articles by Malone.

Secondly, Acts 2 is about the Gentiles. '.....all who are afar off.' Compare with Eph 2:13, 17. But then Joel 2, being a prophecy of Pentecost, is also about the Gentiles. '....I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.'

Have you taken the time to read Dr. McMahon's book review of "Baptism for Disciples Alone"? Here is a link to it: http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm

Please let me know what you think of Malone's book, after you have read Matt's critique of it.

I have read it and still like Malone's book. It provides valuable help to the man in the pew. The critique is sour grapes from start to finish.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Thanks for the links Joe.

As far as Matt's article. We could both sling the word straw man at each other. I believe some of his arguments are straw also. And they start early. His perception of Baptist's being dispensational clouds his eyes sometimes. As it was stated in another thread there is not one monolithic understanding of Covenant Theology. He starts off attacking Fred for teaching his children and praying like the OT commands. Is that also not in the NT. Shouldn't Presbyterian's also evangelize their children or am I missing something.
First, Malone says they should "œevangelize their children."[3] That is good Baptistic language. For him to pray with his children, or teach his children to pray, would be a violation of this language because he would be adopting Old Testament covenant concepts about raising up his children in a certain light. It is good that Malone is consistent at least for now

I also believe evangelism is much more than sharing the gospel so someone can become saved. It is also for the saint after regeneration. Evangel is Good News. We all on this forum expect it to be much more than a simple plan of salvation. It also includes sanctification and glorification. These things are also Good News.


Sometimes Matt just slings mud. I think it is one of his downfalls. He could do things a bit more scholarly himself. But he is in good company. Especially if you put him next to Luther. He would just have to learn a few four letter words.:D

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Thanks for the links Joe.

As far as Matt's article. We could both sling the word straw man at each other. I believe some of his arguments are straw also. And they start early. His perception of Baptist's being dispensational clouds his eyes sometimes. As it was stated in another thread there is not one monolithic understanding of Covenant Theology. He starts off attacking Fred for teaching his children and praying like the OT commands. Is that also not in the NT. Shouldn't Presbyterian's also evangelize their children or am I missing something.


You are missing something. There is a huge difference between telling someone about God, and going so far as to actually teach them to pray, call God "Father", etc. Presbyterians believe we should tell everyone about God, whether or not they are in covenant with Him. But we do not "evangelize" our children, per se. Rather, we raise up our children as covenant members from day one, teaching them to call God "Father" and to pray to Him . . . something we would never tell a pagan coworker to do prior to them giving a confession of faith.

Just look at the Old Testament. Israelite fathers were NEVER told to "evangelize" their children. Rather, they were told, "raise your child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it". There is a difference between that and "evangelism". Evangelism is for those who have no relation to God whatsoever, and need to be reconciled to Him. But our children are already in covenant with God. And we need to raise them to be covenant keepers.
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Secondly, Acts 2 is about the Gentiles. '.....all who are afar off.' Compare with Eph 2:13, 17. But then Joel 2, being a prophecy of Pentecost, is also about the Gentiles. '....I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.'

Wrong.

Joel was talking about Israelites in the dispersion, not Gentiles. And Peter was just quoting from Joel. There is nothing in Acts 2 about Gentiles.

Furthermore, Peter had no idea about Gentile inclusion until Acts 10. To borrow Matt's comment, "Peter was no more thinking about Gentiles in Acts 2 than he was thinking of eating a pork sandwich."
 
Joe,
Is not the Evangel the way in which our children should go? Isn't there a door one must go through? Why would you not teach this to your children? Maybe that is why some crawl over the wall. I teach all to be reconciled to God. That Evangel involves much more than just the message of salvation though. It also has to do with Sanctification, and Glorification. They are also part of the Good News or Evangel. Even if someone is not regenerate, Baptist and Presbyterian's alike are charged with teaching the truth that is in Christ Jesus. I am not sure you totally understand Covenant Baptism and raising a child in the way they should go to the fullest. I teach my children to pray. In General God is Father of the Universe. He is the Creator. Everyman everywhere ought to learn to call upon His name.
 
We know. Scott and I were also discussing some things on this thread and Scott removed some posts already.

Let me restate:
Sorry we got so far off topic.......

I think moralism is good as long as it is Biblical Colleen. Baptismal regeneration is an example of how the early church fathers got off. Augustine also pushed for life long celebacy which I believe is quite exteme. I know St. Paul encouraged it. But he also saw that marriage was of God. Jesus himself addressed remarriage. Not reespousal. I think we need to stick as close to the Scriptures on this topic as we can. I believe the Westminster's and my cradle churches conclusions are biblical.

Be Encouraged, Randy
 
After reading the thread, I think the key to the whole debate is an understanding that marriage is covenantal, but that the marriage covenant is not unconditional. Adultery, desertion and death are all actions that according to scripture break the marriage covenant. Once the covenant is broken the "innocent" party is in no way obligated to remain in the marriage covenant, since the stipulations have been violated. To bind the conscience of the innocent party, where the Lord has granted them liberty is a grievous sin.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
After reading the thread, I think the key to the whole debate is an understanding that marriage is covenantal, but that the marriage covenant is not unconditional. Adultery, desertion and death are all actions that according to scripture break the marriage covenant. Once the covenant is broken the "innocent" party is in no way obligated to remain in the marriage covenant, since the stipulations have been violated. To bind the conscience of the innocent party, where the Lord has granted them liberty is a grievous sin.

:up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top