Children part of the NT Church in Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul,

Correct. One thing to do, that is helpful, is to see the bible's theology of children. I always suggest to people looking into this matter, as one possible avenue of help, is to print out every singe reference to "children" or "offspring" or "descendent." Then read those many pages in a row and see if you don't see the inclusion of our children in the New Covenant.

You know after having it so pointed out it is painfully obvious. We always enter this debate by looking up the terms "baptism", but the terms stated above show the real principle at work!

As they say here in the south, "If it had been a snake it would have already bit me."

Larry
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul,

You wrote:-

Originally posted by Paul manata

I was using an expression to make a point. Too bad you couldn't deal with the point but instead made a critique which misrepresented the context of what I was saying.

The point I was making is that there is no such thing as a credocircumcisionist. If I were an OC Israelite, I would have circumcised my son, no problem. But I'm not, and nor are you. We are in the New Covenant, which according to Heb 8:9 is "Not according to the [first] Covenant." Therefore there should be no such thing as a Paedobaptist, because it confuses the two covenants.

You continued:-

Furthermore, even if they were totally different in every respect, what does that matter?

Well, I think you need to think about this a little more. It might be interesting to look at what the Bible says about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, and then at physical baptism and baptism in the Spirit. I'd be interested to know what you find.

My point is that baptism is, among other things, the sign of membership in the New Covenant. If children are in said covenant then they should receive the sign. So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC. Now, some *similarities* are helpful between the two because then, when the baptist tries to say that baptism signifies, say, X, and so based on that I can't give baptism to infants because infants don't (or should be presumed not to) have X, I just point out that circumcision also signified X and so if we exclude the one then how is it not arbitrary to not exclude the other. The credocircumcisionist would have to argue against Abraham.

Paul, there are no credocircumcisionists :banghead: Never have been; never will be. Straw man!

The only thing you could say is that it was specifically *commanded* that Abraham (and Moses, et al.) give the sign to children but in the NT that command is not in there. So, as I said in my first response to you, I assume, as a basic presupposition, that God does not have to repeat his commands for them to be considered binding. I have no right to annul His previous commands unless *HE* specifically does so.

:amen:

Based on that principle I don't need *any* verses which say I should baptise infants.

No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should circumcise (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you do need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT :D

So, as I said, the main difference is a Dispensational hermeneutic (even if on only this topic!) rather than a CT one.

No, Paul. The main difference is between a dopey hermeneutic (yours) and a completed CT one (mine).

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
there are no credocircumcisionists :banghead: Never have been; never will be.

Thus, there should not be any credobaptists. There never should have been. :banghead:

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Based on that principle I don't need *any* verses which say I should baptise infants.

No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should circumcise (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you do need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT :D

First of all, infants WERE baptized in the OT (cf. 1 Corinthians 10).

Second, and more importantly, you are guilty of trying to hard to focus on the connection between circumcision itself and baptism itself. Rather, you should de-narrow your binoculars so that you can see the big picture. Forget about what the physical signs are for a moment. Instead, ask yourself this question:

Are children still included in the covenant?

And the answer to that question is an easy "YES".


The next question is this:

Should all covenant members be given the covenant sign?

And the answer to that question is an easy "YES".


It is PRECISELY the same logic we use to admit women to the Lord's Supper, even though women were NEVER explicitly admitted to it anywhere in Scripture!


So Paul is correct. We do not need to show a single verse where infants are baptized. We know for certain that infants are included in the covenant with their parents, and that is the only info we need.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
So, as I said, the main difference is a Dispensational hermeneutic (even if on only this topic!) rather than a CT one.

No, Paul. The main difference is between a dopey hermeneutic (yours) and a completed CT one (mine).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

Sorry, Martin. You are the one with a "dopey hermeneutic". :um: (That's a really nice theological term, isn't it? Well, if you can use it, then I can use it.)

Please take off your covenantal blinders :cool: and start reading the Bible :book2: for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.

May dispensationalism forever :tombstone:.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul, [/quote]
Let's try again. You wrote:-
Originally posted by Paul manata

Anyway, my point is the same as Calvin's: what can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Abraham. So, you're focusing on a minor. Credocircumcisionist is not germain to what I have said, it was rhetorical. But instead of picking on that name, deal with the underlying theme.

Paul, Abraham received a command from God to circumcise all his male offspring and household, even Ishmael, whom he knew beyond all doubt was not in the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26-27 ). We have received no such command. We are commanded to baptize disciples. I really can't follow your argument here.

You continued:-

You *tried* to make an argument:


[1] We are in the New Covenant,

[2] which according to Heb 8:9 is "Not according to the [first] Covenant."

[3] Therefore there should be no such thing as a Paedobaptist, because it confuses the two covenants.

This isn't a valid argument. You've not tied any of the premises to the conclsuion. Paedobaptism is not in any of your premises, but your conclusion uses the term. Therefore, your conclusion goes beyond the premises. So as it stands, I don't need to respond, unless you think we are in the dispensation of concluding things based upon poor reasoning?

Well, the construct of my argument above is yours, not mine, but it will serve. The point is clear enough. If we are told by the Holy Spirit that the New Covenant will be 'Not according to' the First Covenant, then it is not for us to second-guess Him by imposing Moses upon Christ, which is to impose the shadow upon the substance (Col 2:17 ).

You continued:-

You wrote: "Well, I think you need to think about this a little more. It might be interesting to look at what the Bible says about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, and then at physical baptism and baptism in the Spirit. I'd be interested to know what you find."

So you're telling me what I need to think about more. Then you tell me what would be interesting for me to see. This just seems highly general. Maybe you're just throwing out something that has the look of an interesting point, but without anything to go on, how should I respond? That is to say, what the heck are you getting at here?

The point I'm making is that the First (Mosaic) Covenant is totally different from the New Covenant. The First was written on tablets of stone and was 'a ministry of death' because it gave no power to keep it; the NC is writtem on 'tablets of flesh, that is, on the heart' (1Cor 3 ). And so it is written of circumcision:-

'"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that I will punish all who are circumcised with those who are uncircumcised- Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab........ For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart' (Jer 9:25-26 ). Physical circumcision did not lead to heart circumcision. But of the New Covenant it is written:-

'For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit' (1Cor 12:13 ). Paul is speaking of Sprit baptism here, not water baptism. All the Corinthians, says the Holy Spirit, possess the reality- they are in the body of Christ. It is those who are the proper subjects of water baptism. In other words, in the OC, fleshly circumcision (the sign) came first and rarely led to heart circumcision (the reality). In the NC, Spirit baptism (conversion- the reality) comes first and water baptism (the outward sign) comes afterwards.

That mistakes are often made and unconverted people baptized, even in NT times is quite true, but that in no way negates the command of Christ. 'Let God be true and every man a liar!' As far as in us lies, we need to seek a pure church. Israel was the harlot; the Church is the chaste bride.

You continued:-
I previously wrote: "My point is that baptism is, among other things, the sign of membership in the New Covenant. If children are in said covenant then they should receive the sign. So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC.

Well, do so, brother. But you'll have to do better than you've done so far.

Now, some *similarities* are helpful between the two because then, when the baptist tries to say that baptism signifies, say, X, and so based on that I can't give baptism to infants because infants don't (or should be presumed not to) have X, I just point out that circumcision also signified X and so if we exclude the one then how is it not arbitrary to not exclude the other. The credocircumcisionist would have to argue against Abraham. "

I think I've covered this above, but if you want to take this further, then you'll have to tell me what X is. And straw man arguments are not valid ones.


You continued in response to me:-

You wrote: "No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should circumcise (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you do need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT " :D

My reply: Where did you show I don't need any verses which say to circumcise infants? I previously said that, as a basic and general rule, I assume that if God commands something I consider it binding until he revokes it. But, using logic, if the Bible said that all male covenant members should be circumcised, then I can conclude that male infants, in the covenant, should be circumcised.

So far, so good. Why then, are you not still circumcising your male children?

Also, I've explained why I don't need a verse which says I need to baptize infants, you didn't respond but again used the "emoticon refutation." But, if you're serious, that is, about me needing a *specific* verse for me to do something, then where is you specific verse which says: "Give the Lord's supper to women?" Now, I know it is easily *inferred,* but there is no "verse" which *specifically* says to do this. I think you know we can infer things, using that little thing called a mind that God gave us, to conclude doctrinal positions.

I showed that the inference concerning women and the Lord's Supper was both good and necessary. If there were a text that spoke of only men partaking, then it would be a different matter. You need to prove to me that the alleged inference of paedo-baptism is both good and necessary in the teeth of numerous texts which either command, relate or assume the baptism of adults.


Now I'd like to deal with Jer 32:37-41 which someone brought up earlier (cf. also Deut 30:6 etc.).

Behold, I will gather them up out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people and I shall be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may always fear Me, for their own good and FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I WILL PUT THE FEAR OF ME IN THEIR HEARTS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM ME.'

Now if this is supposed to be saying that God will always convert the children of believers, then God is the most monstrous liar and Eli, Samuel, David, Soloman, Hezekiah, Josiah and many others will rise up on the Last Day to tell Him so, not to mention men like Francis Turretine and J.C.Ryle whose children were baptized as infants, received high position in the Church because of their fathers' piety, yet apostacized (most dreadfully in the case of Turretine).

But of course that is not what this text means. It is a promise of the New and Everlasting Covenant (cf. Heb 13:20 ). Every heart in this covenant is changed and will not break the covenant. They will not turn away. The New and Everlasting Covenant cannot be broken because God promises to give a heart to keep it. Jeremiah does not say that every physical seed of the heart-changed will be heart-changed (Gal 3:7 again!), but only that it will be for 'the good of their children after them.' Obviously it is 'good' for children to be raised in a Christian home where they can hear the word of God and where their parents are in constant prayer for them, but I do not think that is Jeremiah's meaning; the children are the spiritual children, not the physical (Isaiah 54:1-3. cf. Mark 10:29-31 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Scott,
I have skimmed through the link which you gave in your post. It is far too long for me to try to critique here. It does seem to me, on first reading, that it should return to the well-deserved obscurity from which the Webmaster plucked it.

However, was there a part of the article that you thought was especially pertinent to the thread? If so, please point it out and I will try to reply to it.

In Christ,

Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul,

Where I wrote:-
Paul, Abraham received a command from God to circumcise all his male offspring and household, even Ishmael, whom he knew beyond all doubt was not in the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26-27 ).

You replied:-
Yes, God commanded Abraham to do that. He didn't know "beyond all doubt" that Ishmael was not "in the covenant.

Yes he did, if he believed God. Go and read Gen 17:17-27 again.

Actually, taking your view, Abraham would have "known without a doubt" that only Isaac was in the covenant since God says he'll establish it with Isaac. Obviously, since other people were in the covenant, the phrase, "I will establish my covenant with Isaac" does not mean that other people are excluded. Furthermore, you prove too much since the NC was established with Christ then *you* must not be in it! So, again, I remember telling you something about your reasoning process.

Oh dear! Gen 17:19. 'Then God said, "No, Sarah your wife shal bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant AND WITH HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM.'
'nuff said, I think.

You continued:-

You're still not making any valid inference for me, Martin. How does "not according to the First Covenant" mean that I am "therefore, not to baptize my children?"

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought your rationale for baptizing your infants came from the circumcision of male infants in the OC. Now since we are told that the New Covenant will be 'not according to the Old', it would appear that you should be looking to what the New Covenant says instead of imposing the Old upon it.

You continued:-

Does that phrase, to you, mean that *all* things are not according to the "First Covenant?" So, are we not to "Love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind?" Are we not to "repent?" What? Do you think that some things stayed the same? If so, then you've got squat here since you haven't proven, at all, that infant baptism is not allowed. Martin, all you do is assert. Quit imposing your assertions on Christ and His little ones.

I think you're being just a little bit silly here, Paul. Did not the Lord Jesus Christ have something to say about loving the Lord, and about repentance? What He didn't do was say 'squat' about baptizing babies. He took them in His arms and blessed them, but He baptized only 'disciples' (John 4:1 ).

You then asked:-

There was not one un-elect in the entire Church of Corinth?

Nope! If they were false believers, they weren't in the church. Read 1Cor 1:2. Of false believers it is written, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us' (1John 2:19 ).

You then gave a great pile of OT verses. They are either prophecies of the New Covenant (like Deut 30:6 ) or they are conditional, like Luke 1:50- 'And His mercy is on those who fear HIm from generation to generation.' God's mercy is indeed from generation to generation, but only towards those who fear Him, so it is only those who should be the subjects of baptism.

You went on (concerning inference):-
Good, so I don't need a specific command. I now expect you to drop that line of attack.

I have agreed several times that good and necessary inference may be used; but not in the teeth of repeated NT commands and examples of only repentant and believing adults being baptized.

You then wrote:-
Actually, there are plenty of general rules. God *promises* that if children obey their parents then they will live long in the land. However, there have been children who are brats, but they live long. And, there have been obedient children who die early. So, generally, if you obey your mom and dad, you're not gonna drink "Raid."

So God's a liar then? Do you not understand the fifth commandment? If it depended upon me to keep it I should be dead already. I did not honour my parents as I should have; did you? Perfectly? All the time? However, praise the Lord, by my union with Christ, I have kept the commandment perfectly (Luke 2:51 ). And the land that the Lord has given me is a much better one than the land of Canaan. It is there, by God's grace, that I expect to live long.

Reference Heb 10, the Hebrew Christians were being tempted to return to Judaism. Therefore the writer warns them of the judgements that prevailed under the Old Covenant. However, there is no danger of anyone in the New Covenant coming under such judgment because,

'"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD; I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them." Then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"'
(Heb 10:6-7 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought your rationale for baptizing your infants came from the circumcision of male infants in the OC. Now since we are told that the New Covenant will be 'not according to the Old', it would appear that you should be looking to what the New Covenant says instead of imposing the Old upon it.

Martin,
That all depends upon when the new covenant began; from a dispensational view point, it began at the last supper, from the covenantal, in Genesis.

The 'obscure' paper I suggested seemed applicable as somewhere in this thread, the transition came into question; I believe Matt's paper clearly defined the idea.

Not to sidetrack the thread as I believe Paul is doing a fine job, but may I ask you, whom the warning passages in the book of Hebrews is to?
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Scott,

Martin,
That all depends upon when the new covenant began; from a dispensational view point, it began at the last supper, from the covenantal, in Genesis.
The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).

Hebrews 10 is written to Hebrew Christians (probably in Jerusalem) who were being tempted to return to Judaism. If they were to return thither, they would prove themselves no Christians at all and therefore subject to judgment (Rom 8:1 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).

.........and we were all elect before the foundation of the world; and Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, we were regenerated in time, as Christ was slain in time. Practically, when, in time, does the NC begin Martin?

The Col passage speaks in regards to the gentiles knowledge of the mystery. The OT Jew had this knowledge.

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul,
We seem to be getting a little acrimonious, so I'll deal with just two of the points you raise:-

1. Abraham knew explicitly that Ishmael was not in the covenant, yet he still circumcised him. As it is written in Gen 17:18-19, 26:-
And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said, "No! Sarah, your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him and with his descendants [or 'Seed'] after him"........ That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son, Ishmael.
First Abraham is told that Ishmael is not in the covenant, then he circumcises him. Your covenant theology has got to take that into account.

Quite rightly, you pointed me to Gal 3:16. The covenant is not with Isaac's descendants indiscriminately (as Esau could tell us), but only to those who are in Christ as is shown by Gal 3:29.
And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

2. Next, let's look at Heb 10:30. You wrote:-
I gave a valid argument, Martin. The people who trample under foot the Son of God, will be judged. God tells us that they will be judged with fire. He calls them, "His people." All times God refers to someone as "His people" are times that He views them as being in covenant with Him. If you can't rebut my argument then I'll assume you have no rebuttal but are acting like a dogmatic Papist, sound familar?

Acts 17:28-31:-
For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your poets have said, 'For we are all His offspring.' Therefore since we.......
that is, Paul, the Athenians and the rest of humanity
.........are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.
What is the makeup of the 'world' that God is going to judge? Is it not composed of those whom Paul has just referred to as 'His offspring'? Is there anyone in the world who does not owe his existence to God and cannot therefore be described as 'His people'?

But of course, there is a special people of God for whom there may be chastisement, but no ultimate condemnation. The writer to the Hebrews was quoting from Deut 32:36 which reads:-
For the LORD will judge His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that their power is gone.
Of God's New Covenant people it is written:-
Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.
Jer 31:34; Heb 10:17.

If the recipients of the letter were to apostatize, they would be proving themselves to be false believers and not partakers of the New Covenant.

But just in case there should be any doubt that those in the NC will persevere to salvation, the writer finishes this section of the letter by saying (Heb 10:29 ):-
But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul

Amen!

From Tuesday night, I shall be away for two weeks, so it is likely that any further correspondence will have to wait until then.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).

.........and we were all elect before the foundation of the world; and Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, we were regenerated in time, as Christ was slain in time. Practically, when, in time, does the NC begin Martin?

The Col passage speaks in regards to the gentiles knowledge of the mystery. The OT Jew had this knowledge.

I see nothing in Col 1:26 that suggests that it only has reference to the Gentiles. Perhaps you might also consider 1Peter 1:10-12? The Israelites certainly received adumbrations of the NC, as I said before, but the full revelation awaited the coming Of Christ.

But if you're asking, were the OT saints saved by faith in the coming Seed or Messiah, as He was foreshadowed progressively in the Covenants of Promise, then the answer is Yes.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Peters

Puritan Board Freshman
Please take off your covenantal blinders and start reading the Bible for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.

Do all the Paedobaptists who have posted on this thread believe, as Joseph does, that both regenerate and unregenerate people are in the Covenant of Grace?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Absolutely!

The Larger Catechism states:

Q162: What is a sacrament?
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[1] to signify, seal, and exhibit [2] unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[3] the benefits of his mediation;[4] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[5] to oblige them to obedience;[6] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[7] and to distinguish them from those that are without.[8]

1. Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19
2. Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25
3. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48
4. Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16
5. Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27
6. Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21
7. Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13
8. Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14

The Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 28 states:

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) of regeneration,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

(a) Matt. 28:19.
(b) I Cor. 12:13.
(c) Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11, 12.
(d) Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5.
(e) Tit. 3:5.
(f) Mark 1:4.
(g) Rom. 6:3, 4.
(h) Matt. 28:19, 20.




[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Amazing indeed!
Paul,
1. You say that in Gen 17, Abraham is not told that Ishmael is not in the covenant. Gen 17:18-19:-
And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!"
Then God said, "No."
I understand that you believe that 'No' actually means 'Yes'. Let's leave it there.

2. With reference to Heb 10, I have shown you the following.

(a) In vs 16-17, God declares that under the New Covenant, He will remember the sins of His covenant people no more.

(b) In v30, which you are relying upon, the quotation, from Deut 32:36, is actually one of mercy and restoration.

(c) There is no people in the world who are not God's people, since He made them.

(d) The context of Heb 10:30 is a warning against returning to Judaism. The warning is therefore to those who would place themselves under the Mosaic Covenant, not to those under the New Covenant.

(e) As if to confirm all these points, the writer observes in v39 that he and his readers, 'Are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.' But of course; they are in the New Covenant.

It is clear that I am :deadhorse: here, so I think we may as well draw this exchange to an end.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Marcos,

You asked,

Originally posted by Peters
Please take off your covenantal blinders and start reading the Bible for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.

Do all the Paedobaptists who have posted on this thread believe, as Joseph does, that both regenerate and unregenerate people are in the Covenant of Grace?

Well, they have to, in order to jusify the inclusion of infants in the New Covenant. But interestingly, Question 31 of the WCF Larger Catechism seems to refute this:-

Q. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

I think all 1689 Confession Baptists could say, 'Amen!' to that, but it seems to contradict what Gabriel wrote on this thread inasmuch as there seems to be no room for the non-elect. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the WCF, and I'd be glad to hear someone explain this to me. I posted this earlier, but no one seemed to want to comment on it.

BTW, nice to meet another FIEC man! :handshake:

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Peters

Puritan Board Freshman
Martin,

Yes, nice to meet you, brother. Were you at the last FIEC conference in Wales?

Paul,

Do you believe that both unregenerate and regenerate people are in the Covenant of Grace? Do you believe that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are identical?
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually all we have to believe by faith and trust is the Word of God and His promises on the issue rather than attempt to live by sight profanely playing God by seeking "who is regenerate and who is unregenerate".

One group clearly puts greater emphasis on faith and trust in the promise of God's own Word proceeding from Him and the Good News of Christ, while the other living by sight and the testimony of sinful men "must first see" and hope it is not faked. This much is crystal clear.

Acts 2:39, "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

The Word of God is quite glorious. Nothing is as clear and simple as this, and should silence all doubts except those who impress upon the text what their system requires of it.

Given a choice I will believe Christ over any denomination.

I'm certain this would be brought up:

Acts 2:40 - 41, "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation! So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."

But this later verse depends upon one's view, individualism or covenantal? The credo rendering of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" would finish up by saying, "...and those who only cognizantly understood these words came - thus the Europeans leaving all their children in Europe swore oaths of citizenship came to and became Americans."

It is odd that Christ put the direction and emphasis of adults becoming as little children, yet credo theology puts the direction and emphasis on children becoming as adults - who are much more deceptive and easily professing falsely and without little effort can fake external works and "good" deeds.

A covenant sets up a relationship. Even in the Covenant of Works the breakers of the covenant attempt to "leave" or break the covenant. But when they do, as a covenant of God's Who is all things, they receive the consequences of the breaking.

Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

I'll let greater minds offer an answer but I'll give it a try:

WCF 31 seems to be speaking of both the Covenant of Redemption, made with Christ as the second Adam, without differentiation as to the Covenant of Grace. Because Christ didn't need grace (CoG) but rather He fulfilled what Adam failed in the Covenant of Works (AS the second Adam), thus it speaks more to the elect.

L
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
So, again, Martin: Do you believe the WCF contradicts itself and that they have no reason to practice paedobaptism becuase of that statement? Do you believe they intended that phrase to mean what you think it means?
 

Peters

Puritan Board Freshman
Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

I'll let greater minds offer an answer but I'll give it a try:

WCF 31 seems to be speaking of both the Covenant of Redemption, made with Christ as the second Adam, without differentiation as to the Covenant of Grace. Because Christ didn't need grace (CoG) but rather He fulfilled what Adam failed in the Covenant of Works (AS the second Adam), thus it speaks more to the elect.

Do the rest of you paedobaptists believe, as Larry does, that the Covenant of Redemption was made with Christ as the Second Adam?
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, Gabriel,
I'm interested to know what you think it means.
After all, it's your confession, not mine.

It doesn't actually seem to be terribly complicated :D

Hi Marcos.
Yes, I was at Pwllelhi. Great ministry!
I didn't see you there! :lol:

Martin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top