"Covenant Language" in Baptist Churches?

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters

Certainly not!

How can non-covenant-members partake of Christ, partake of the Holy Ghost, or be sanctified by the blood of the covenant???

Are you saying that these things can only be experienced by children of Christians?

Can an unregenerate NC member who is not the child of a Christian (a baptised adult) partake of these things?

Yes, that's what I've said repeatedly. Go read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10 . . . . especially Hebrews 10

Originally posted by Peters

Yes, God makes a distinct promise regarding the children of believers. He promises to be the God of their children.

But God does not promise to be the God of everyone's children. It is a special promise He makes to believers.

I don´t understand what you mean here. Brother. Are you saying that God promises to be the God of the children´s children? Your second paragraph confuses me even more because, on the basis of your first paragraph, it sounds like you´re saying the children of believers are believers.

Read Genesis 17. God promises to be the God of Abraham AND his children. The same promise is for us (Galatians 3:29).

When God said He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Jesus exegeted that as meaning that those men have eternal life.

So God promises that His saving grace will run in family lines. God promises that the children of believers will be believers . . . . of course, this doesn't always pan out (just look at Esau) . . . but it is what should be expected as the norm. The children of believers should be presumed regenerate (or at least elect) until they prove otherwise.

Originally posted by Peters
Here are two questions:

Does an unregenerate child born of Christian parents, who is baptised into the New Covenant, need to be saved in exactly the same way that an unregenerate child, who is born of non-Christian parents, who has not been baptised into the New Covenant needs to be saved?

Yes, the child has to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and saved just like anyone else. Of course, this may happen in infancy, or it may not.

Originally posted by Peters
What do the temporal blessings of the NC *promise the baptised child of a believer* for eternity?

I don't draw that kind of dichotomy. I presume my children will inherit ALL the blessings of the New Covenant, including salvation. But only time will tell. But since I am part of the Romans 11 "olive tree", I assume that my kids are little "olive shoots" (cf. Psalms 128:3) until they prove otherwise.

However, even if my children do NOT end up partaking of regeneration and salvation in the New Covenant, it is CERTAIN that they still partake of the outward benefits of the New Covenant. They are CERTAINLY members of the New Covenant. --- Thus, it is CERTAIN that they should be given the outward sign (water baptism). Whether or not they have received or will receive the inward sign (Spirit baptism) will become clearer as time goes by.





[Edited on 7-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Isaiah makes it clear that the more glorious and better impact of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant community, prophesied as the restoration of Israel throughout the OT, is something passed down through the generations. The promise of the Holy Spirit is a generationial promise, to you and your offspring, and this is no "temporal/earthly" promise done away with in Christ - it is spiritual.

For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. (Isaiah 44:3)

"œAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "œMy Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "œfrom this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 59:21)

 

[Peters]

Read Genesis 17. God promises to be the God of Abraham AND his children. The same promise is for us (Galatians 3:29).

What! No way can you get that from Galatians 3:29.

"œAnd if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"

The seed are of faith. We are the children. This is what the promise means; the children are in Christ by faith. Until a child demonstrates the fruits of faith, you have no right to assume that the child is in Christ by faith. You think God automatically imputes righteousness to them BECAUSE they are their parents´ child? You are equating belonging to Christ with belonging to a Christian by birth. That is not what Galatians teaches at all.

So God promises that His saving grace will run in family lines. God promises that the children of believers will be believers . . . . of course, this doesn't always pan out (just look at Esau)

What! God´s promises don´t "œalways pan out"? Well why not?

Yes, the child has to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and saved just like anyone else. Of course, this may happen in infancy, or it may not.

Why would this not happen to a covenant child in infancy?

If the covenant child proves to be unsaved, what went wrong at the time of infancy?

In light of the above, what´s the real difference?

Is the non-covenant child not promised that he will be saved if he places his faith in Christ alone?

But since I am part of the Romans 11 "olive tree", I assume that my kids are little "olive shoots" (cf. Psalms 128:3) until they prove otherwise.

What would you have to see in order to conclude that your kids aren´t regenerate?

However, even if my children do NOT end up partaking of regeneration and salvation in the New Covenant, it is CERTAIN that they still partake of the outward benefits of the New Covenant. They are CERTAINLY members of the New Covenant. --- Thus, it is CERTAIN that they should be given the outward sign (water baptism). Whether or not they have received or will receive the inward sign (Spirit baptism) will become clearer as time goes by.

No, you enter into the New Covenant based on faith. So the sign is applied as accurately as it can be according to a person entering in by FAITH. I think it is far more biblical and certain to presume a person has faith in Christ alone based on the testimony of that person´s, life, conversation, doctrine, and perseverance in trials, than to presume a person is born with faith, especially when even some of the covenant children may end up not saved (as you have explicitly said)

Just because a person may not be entering into the NC inwardly (COG) that doesn´t mean that we go around baptising everyone into NC outwardly because they still get some benefits.

Brother, you have said some concerning things in your last post.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The seed are of faith. We are the children. This is what the promise means; the children are in Christ by faith. Until a child demonstrates the fruits of faith, you have no right to assume that the child is in Christ by faith. You think God automatically imputes righteousness to them BECAUSE they are their parents´ child? You are equating belonging to Christ with belonging to a Christian by birth. That is not what Galatians teaches at all.

This was true in the Old Testament too, though. Children of believers are still part of the covenant. (Ezek 37; Jer 32; Isa 52, 54, etc...). Always have been, and always will be, until Christ returns.

What would you have to see in order to conclude that your kids aren´t regenerate?

Apostasy. Denial of the gospel and Christ as Lord.

No, you enter into the New Covenant based on faith. So the sign is applied as accurately as it can be according to a person entering in by FAITH.

Adults enter the covenant based on faith. Their children enter according to the promise, and stay in by faith, as Isaac and those who followed did (Rom 4).

I think it is far more biblical and certain to presume a person has faith in Christ alone based on the testimony of that person´s, life, conversation, doctrine, and perseverance in trials, than to presume a person is born with faith, especially when even some of the covenant children may end up not saved (as you have explicitly said)

What you think is not the issue. What God has taught us throughout redemptive history is. You don't have to presume a person is born with faith, necessarily. You just know for certain they are in the covenant, and therefore should receive the sign of the covenant. Your elect-o-meter conditions for someone to enter into the covenant is flawed, because many times, these types of profession-of-faith people fall away from the faith and prove themselves to be unbelievers, despite meeting all of those conditions. So, we're back at square one: What does Scripture say?

1. God made the covenant of promise with a believer and promised to pass it down generation after generation to His children if He and they are faithful.
2. This never changed in Scripture.
3. Children are still part of the covenant of promise.
4. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant initiation in the OT.
5. Baptism is the sign in the NT.
6. Circumcision and baptism signify the same reality and are connected in the thing signified.
7. Children in the NT should be baptized.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Good job, Gabe.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Gabe did an excellent job above, but there are still a couple of particulars I want to address:

Originally posted by Peters

Read Genesis 17. God promises to be the God of Abraham AND his children. The same promise is for us (Galatians 3:29).

What! No way can you get that from Galatians 3:29.

"œAnd if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"

The seed are of faith. We are the children. This is what the promise means; the children are in Christ by faith. Until a child demonstrates the fruits of faith, you have no right to assume that the child is in Christ by faith. You think God automatically imputes righteousness to them BECAUSE they are their parents´ child? You are equating belonging to Christ with belonging to a Christian by birth. That is not what Galatians teaches at all.

No, God does not automatically impute righteousness to anyone because they are born to Christian parents. I never said that, nor implied it. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

I agree with you that the "true seed of Abraham" are those who are of faith Scripture is clear about that. But I think a big part of your problem is your assumption that this "true seed by faith" distinction only operates in the New Testament. It is almost as if you are saying, "In the Old Testament, all physical descendants were the 'seed of Abraham', but in the New Testament, only those of faith are the 'seed of Abraham'." --- And if that is what you are saying or thinking, then you are wrong.

The "true" seed of Abraham, has always been only those of faith, both in the OT and the NT. That fact has never changed. Nevertheless, in both the OT and the NT, the outward physical sign and seal of the covenant is given to all physical descendants of covenant members.

So, your "true seed of Abraham" bit doesn't help you at all in the NT, unless you also want to argue that physical circumcision should have only been given to professing believers in the OT. And I know you don't believe that.

Originally posted by Peters

So God promises that His saving grace will run in family lines. God promises that the children of believers will be believers . . . . of course, this doesn't always pan out (just look at Esau)

What! God´s promises don´t "œalways pan out"? Well why not?

You tell me. In the 5th commandment, for example, we are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, so that things will go well for us and we will live long. Is that a general principle which should normally be expected to be true? Certainly. But is it a hard and fast rule that binds God from being able to take obedient children to Heaven early? Of course not.

And more to our current topic, how about the promise made in Proverbs 22:6? "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
--- Is it a promise from God? yes.
--- Does it generally prove true? yes.
--- Does God intend us to believe that there are never any exceptions to this rule? no.

Originally posted by Peters
No, you enter into the New Covenant based on faith. So the sign is applied as accurately as it can be according to a person entering in by FAITH. I think it is far more biblical and certain to presume a person has faith in Christ alone based on the testimony of that person´s, life, conversation, doctrine, and perseverance in trials, than to presume a person is born with faith, especially when even some of the covenant children may end up not saved (as you have explicitly said)

You may say that people only enter into the NC by faith, but Scripture disagrees with you. Go read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10. Then explain to me how you can believe that there are not nonelect members in the New Covenant.

Originally posted by Peters
Just because a person may not be entering into the NC inwardly (COG) that doesn´t mean that we go around baptising everyone into NC outwardly because they still get some benefits.

This comment is a straw man . . . I do not know of a single paedobaptist who thinks we should "go around baptising everyone into the NC outwardly". Nonsense.

You are missing my point that the children of believers are BORN members of the New Covenant, regardless of whether you baptize them or not. If you do not baptize them, then you are essentially disagreeing with God, telling Him, "No, my kid is NOT in covenant with you!" It is a sin not to baptize your children. But the baptism itself is not what PUTS them in covenant with God. Rather, you baptize them because they are ALREADY in covenant with God. Read Genesis 17 . . . this is precisely how it worked in the Abrahamic covenant.

Originally posted by Peters
Brother, you have said some concerning things in your last post.

I realize we disagree over covenant membership and baptism, but that's the case for every credobaptist/paedobaptist debate. So what exactly is so "concerning" to you? Are you questioning my faith? Or are you just trying to ruffle my feathers?

 

[Peters]

No, God does not automatically impute righteousness to anyone because they are born to Christian parents. I never said that, nor implied it. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

It came when you said:

"œBut since I am part of the Romans 11 "olive tree", I assume that my kids are little "olive shoots" (cf. Psalms 128:3) until they prove otherwise."

You assume that your kids are saved. You assume that they have imputed righteousness.

I agree with you that the "true seed of Abraham" are those who are of faith Scripture is clear about that. But I think a big part of your problem is your assumption that this "true seed by faith" distinction only operates in the New Testament. It is almost as if you are saying, "In the Old Testament, all physical descendants were the 'seed of Abraham', but in the New Testament, only those of faith are the 'seed of Abraham'." --- And if that is what you are saying or thinking, then you are wrong.

No, what I´m saying is, in the Old Testament, the TRUE descendents of Abraham were of the same FAITH as Abraham. In the New Testament, the TRUE descendents are of the same FAITH as Abraham. The difference in the New Testament is that the sign is no longer applied to everyone indiscriminately because the promise made to the Seed is fulfilled in Christ; therefore the sign is now applied to those who are perceived to ACTUALLY be the TRUE descendents of Abraham by virtue of their identity with the Seed BY FAITH.

The "true" seed of Abraham, has always been only those of faith, both in the OT and the NT. That fact has never changed. Nevertheless, in both the OT and the NT, the outward physical sign and seal of the covenant is given to all physical descendants of covenant members.

Nope. You are missing the relevance and necessity of union and identity to the Seed BY FAITH.

You tell me. In the 5th commandment, for example, we are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, so that things will go well for us and we will live long. Is that a general principle which should normally be expected to be true? Certainly. But is it a hard and fast rule that binds God from being able to take obedient children to Heaven early? Of course not.

So you agree that God is NOT promising your covenant kids salvation or that they are in fact saved?

You may say that people only enter into the NC by faith, but Scripture disagrees with you. Go read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10. Then explain to me how you can believe that there are not nonelect members in the New Covenant.

You miss quoted me. I said BASED on faith. A person is baptised into the New Covenant BASED on faith. That is, I believe this person demonstrates that he has true faith in Christ, therefore I will baptise you into the New Covenant. He is baptised into the New Covenant BASED on his faith.

This comment is a straw man . . . I do not know of a single paedobaptist who thinks we should "go around baptising everyone into the NC outwardly". Nonsense.

Sorry, brother. I only meant to apply a logical parallel. I didn´t mean to infer that this is what you guys actually do.

You are missing my point that the children of believers are BORN members of the New Covenant, regardless of whether you baptize them or not. If you do not baptize them, then you are essentially disagreeing with God, telling Him, "No, my kid is NOT in covenant with you!" It is a sin not to baptize your children. But the baptism itself is not what PUTS them in covenant with God. Rather, you baptize them because they are ALREADY in covenant with God. Read Genesis 17 . . . this is precisely how it worked in the Abrahamic covenant.

No this has not been you point. Your point is that there is something salvific promised to children by virtue of their parents´ faith in Christ. To you guys there´s much more going on than "œI´m doing it because I´m told to do it".

I realize we disagree over covenant membership and baptism, but that's the case for every credobaptist/paedobaptist debate. So what exactly is so "concerning" to you? Are you questioning my faith? Or are you just trying to ruffle my feathers?

I question everyone´s faith, but I´d baptise you, brother It was just some of the things that I asked you very specific questions about. You haven´t responded to them (maybe because you thought Gabe did). Here they are again:


You said:

Yes, the child has to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and saved just like anyone else. Of course, this may happen in infancy, or it may not

Why would this not happen to a covenant child in infancy?

If the covenant child proves to be unsaved, what went wrong at the time of infancy?

In light of the above, what´s the real difference?

Is the non-covenant child not promised that he will be saved if he places his faith in Christ alone?

 

[Peters]

Hi Gabe

I don´t want you to think that I´m ignoring you, brother. I think I addressed your points in my reply to Joseph is all. Thanks for weighing in.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Being part of the olive tree doesn't mean you are saved. Therefore, we're not assuming they're saved, just that they're part of Israel by birth.

 

[Peters]

Then you and Joseph are at odds.

I'm sure that being "part of Israel by birth" hold different significance for you and I. what do you think it meant to Jesus in John 8:31-47?

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."
"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (John 8:31-47).

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
You assume that your kids are saved. You assume that they have imputed righteousness.

I assume that my kids are regenerate. John Calvin, Dr. McMahon, and Scott Bushey are with me here.

That does not mean that I know for sure that they are regenerate. Presuming is not the same as infallibly knowing.

Originally posted by Peters
The difference in the New Testament is that the sign is no longer applied to everyone indiscriminately because the promise made to the Seed is fulfilled in Christ; therefore the sign is now applied to those who are perceived to ACTUALLY be the TRUE descendents of Abraham by virtue of their identity with the Seed BY FAITH.

That's funny, I don't remember ever reading anywhere in Scripture where that change was made. I think you are arguing from silence.

Plus, you are missing an even deeper point. ALL of Abraham's physical descendants were presumed regenerate until they proved otherwise. They were "perceived to ACTUALLY be the TRUE descendants of Abraham by virtue of their identity with the Seed BY FAITH" . . . You seem to forget that circumcision itself was a sign and seal of faith.

Likewise, Christians should presume their children elect until they prove otherwise. Thus the sign of regeneration is also applied to their children, just like it was to Abraham's.

You seem to be drawing this huge dichotomy between circumcision and baptism that just does not exist in the Bible. BOTH were administered as signs/seals of faith & regeneration, and were given to ALL New Covenant members, on the basis of presumed regeneration (this includes both infants and adults because we cannot KNOW who is actually regenerate --- we can only presume in both cases).

Originally posted by Peters
You are missing the relevance and necessity of union and identity to the Seed BY FAITH.

No, I don't miss it at all. Faith is greatly important. Just do not forget that circumcision itself was a sign and seal of faith. Quit acting like it had such a different meaning from baptism.

Originally posted by Peters
So you agree that God is NOT promising your covenant kids salvation or that they are in fact saved?

No, I don't agree. God DOES promise to be a God to all of Abraham's descendants, which includes my children, since I myself am a descendant of Abraham. But I don't think this promise was intended to be an unbreakable rule, anymore than Proverbs 22:6 is an ironclad guarantee 100% of the time.

You tell me how often the Proverbs 22:6 promise will absolutely hold true.

Originally posted by Peters

You may say that people only enter into the NC by faith, but Scripture disagrees with you. Go read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10. Then explain to me how you can believe that there are not nonelect members in the New Covenant.

You miss quoted me. I said BASED on faith. A person is baptised into the New Covenant BASED on faith. That is, I believe this person demonstrates that he has true faith in Christ, therefore I will baptise you into the New Covenant. He is baptised into the New Covenant BASED on his faith.

I don't understand how what you said here is different from what I said about your position. How is "by faith" any different from "based on faith"???

Originally posted by Peters

You are missing my point that the children of believers are BORN members of the New Covenant, regardless of whether you baptize them or not. If you do not baptize them, then you are essentially disagreeing with God, telling Him, "No, my kid is NOT in covenant with you!" It is a sin not to baptize your children. But the baptism itself is not what PUTS them in covenant with God. Rather, you baptize them because they are ALREADY in covenant with God. Read Genesis 17 . . . this is precisely how it worked in the Abrahamic covenant.

No this has not been you point. Your point is that there is something salvific promised to children by virtue of their parents´ faith in Christ. To you guys there´s much more going on than "œI´m doing it because I´m told to do it".

Yes, this is my point. I do not appreciate you telling me what my point is and is not. And yes, salvation is promised to the children of believers. This doesn't always pan out, though, any more than Proverbs 22:6 does. But REGARDLESS of that, we DO know that our kids are CERTAINLY covenant members, and are therefore REQUIRED to receive the covenant sign. Even paedobaptists who disagree with me regarding presumptive regeneration agree with me on this.

Originally posted by Peters

You said:

Yes, the child has to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and saved just like anyone else. Of course, this may happen in infancy, or it may not

Why would this not happen to a covenant child in infancy?

You would have to ask God. How in the world do you think I (or anyone else) could answer a question like that? Whether God chooses to regenerate someone in infancy, or whether He chooses to regenerate them later (or never) is His business, not mine.

Originally posted by Peters

If the covenant child proves to be unsaved, what went wrong at the time of infancy?

Apparently God chose not to regenerate him/her then.

Originally posted by Peters
In light of the above, what´s the real difference?

The difference between what?

Originally posted by Peters
Is the non-covenant child not promised that he will be saved if he places his faith in Christ alone?

Everyone is promised that.

But not everyone is promised that they will be regenerated and saved.
However, regeneration and salvation IS promised to the children of believers.

Does this end up happening 100% of the time? NO!

But does God choose to elect a WHOLE LOT MORE children of believers, than children of unbelievers? YES!

God Sovereignly chooses to send His saving grace through family lines.


But again, let's get back to paedobaptism itself. You can be a paedobaptist without agreeing with presumptive regeneration/election.
--- All you need to realize is that the children of believers are automatically members of the New Covenant. This is ALL that is necessary to establish the command to baptize infants.

And establishing the place of infants & young children in the covenant is a very easy thing to do.

I like what Paul recommended on another thread. Get out your concordance, and look up every instance of "child", "children", infant", "descendants", etc. --- Upon doing that, it should be VERY clear to you that the children of believers are automatically included in the covenant.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
Then you and Joseph are at odds.

No, Gabe and I agree that being a branch on the olive tree does not equal salvation. The apostle Paul agrees too (cf. Romans 11).

You are the one who seems to have trouble with the idea.

Originally posted by Peters
I'm sure that being "part of Israel by birth" hold different significance for you and I. what do you think it meant to Jesus in John 8:31-47?

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."
"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (John 8:31-47).

Thank you for quoting that excellent passage. I was thinking about quoting it to you, but you beat me to the punch.

Why do you have a problem with this passage? It displays very clearly that even *Old Testament* descendants of Abraham were not necessarily the "descendants" of Abraham, according to faith. Nevertheless, the sign and seal of faith was placed upon them in infancy, because they were automatically covenant members. So, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate where & how things changed in the NT.

 

[Peters]

You would have to ask God. How in the world do you think I (or anyone else) could answer a question like that? Whether God chooses to regenerate someone in infancy, or whether He chooses to regenerate them later (or never) is His business, not mine.

No, hang on a second. You´re telling me that if your kids grow up to be believers it´s because they have always been believers because that´s what God has promised them AS INFANTS (that´s what the promise means to you, right?), so what is it that is making them fall away AS INFANTS?

Apparently God chose not to regenerate him/her then [covenant children]

So God PROMISED to regenerate them and then CHOSE not to regenerate them? This is the kind nonsense that you argument is amounting to, brother.

That's funny, I don't remember ever reading anywhere in Scripture where that change was made. I think you are arguing from silence.

It´s because you fail to see the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant with respect to their typological significance in redemptive history.

Plus, you are missing an even deeper point. ALL of Abraham's physical descendants were presumed regenerate until they proved otherwise.

I cannot believe that you would conclude this from that passage in John 8. The whole point is that the Jews made this presumption and Jesus corrected them!

This is going nowhere I fear. Since we are beginning to overlap with your discussion with Theological Books in the other thread, I´ll meet you over there. I think those are the issues that need to be worked out first. I have learnt much form our discussion and I thank you for that, brother.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

It´s because you fail to see the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant with respect to their typological significance in redemptive history.

Um, I think you have this backwards. The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant is the Abrahamic covenant.

Luke 1:50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

68 "œBlessed be the Lord God of Israel,
for he has visited and redeemed his people
69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David,
70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
71 that we should be saved from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us;
72 to show the mercy promised to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
73 the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us
74 that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
might serve him without fear,
75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people
in the forgiveness of their sins,
78 because of the tender mercy of our God,
whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace."


Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."


Gal 3:7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "œIn you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.


Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"”for it is written, "œCursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree""” 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

What promised Spirit? Tell us, Isaiah!:

Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

Isa 59:21 "œAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "œMy Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "œfrom this time forth and forevermore."

Isaiah must be mistaken ... The promise of the Holy Spirit to the children of God's covenant people, generation after generation can't be right ... or can it?

It can be right and it is right. Praise God for His blessed and increased mercy and grace in the New Covenant towards our children, to all those who are of faith along with Abraham.

 

[Peters]

Um, I think you have this backwards. The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant is the Abrahamic covenant.

I said the DIFFERENCES between these two covenants WITH RESPECT TO their typological significance in redemptive history.

It´s not the LITERAL offspring who inherit the promise of salvation (and that is the promise) but the TRUE offspring who inherit the promise of salvation. What qualifies someone as TRUE OFFSPRING is that they have faith in Christ alone and this is what qualifies someone for the sign in the New Covenant. This is what the brighter light of the New Covenant shows.

This is what you miss:

The Abrahamic Covenant is a SHADOW of the Covenant of Grace. The New Covenant is also a shadow of the Covenant of Grace but it is still clearer than the Abrahamic Covenant BECAUSE OF ITS TYPOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN REDEMPTIVE HISTORY. Redemptive history moves, it moves forward though the temporal, historical covenants, always pushing towards the greater, truer, fuller reality. The New Covenant shows more clearly the reality of the Covenant of Grace than the Abrahamic Covenant (or any other covenant before it, I might add). You are still applying the sign according to a darker revelation, not according to a fuller, brighter revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant.

 

[biblelighthouse]

No, hang on a second. You´re telling me that if your kids grow up to be believers it´s because they have always been believers because that´s what God has promised them AS INFANTS (that´s what the promise means to you, right?), so what is it that is making them fall away AS INFANTS?

[/quote]

Marcos,

I'm getting weary of you putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that if my "kids grow up to be believers it´s because they have always been believers". That is certainly not guaranteed. PERHAPS they are regenerate now. PERHAPS God will regenerate them later. I PRESUME they are regenerate now, but I DO NOT KNOW one way or the other right now.

What part of "PRESUME" don't you understand?

Originally posted by Peters

So God PROMISED to regenerate them and then CHOSE not to regenerate them? This is the kind nonsense that you argument is amounting to, brother.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Why do you call it nonsense?

You still have not answered my question regarding Proverbs 22:6.

Is Proverbs 22:6 a promise from God? Yes.
Nevertheless, does Proverbs 22:6 hold true 100% of the time? No.

Is the fifth commandment a promise from God? Yes.
Nevertheless, does it hold true 100% of the time? No.

You need to explain to me why you look at the Abrahamic promise as something that must be "100% guaranteed" . . . Proverbs 22:6 and the 5th commandment certainly don't fit into that category!

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I feel as though Scripture is being blatantly ignored and blown off here.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I feel as though Scripture is being blatantly ignored and blown off here.

By him or by me?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

By him. Assertion after assertion, and "you just don't get it!" won't get us anywhere. We have to deal with Scripture to understand Scripture, and when I post several passages and they are ignored, I think that shows a fundamental problem in our debate here. *shrug*

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How can the phrase, "the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring" not be referring to literal offspring? Proof?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
By him. Assertion after assertion, and "you just don't get it!" won't get us anywhere. We have to deal with Scripture to understand Scripture, and when I post several passages and they are ignored, I think that shows a fundamental problem in our debate here. *shrug*

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
How can the phrase, "the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring" not be referring to literal offspring? Proof?

Marcos never did respond to the Scriptures you posted, did he? --- I would be interested to hear him respond to the one you just mentioned again here.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Ah, its 'let's gang up on the baptist' again. How novel and refreshing.

Guys, give him time, let him respond without resorting to this snide tete-a-tete.



I know Marcos well, and he will respond to things you ask him to. I would suggest that this debate has raged over so many posts that perhaps the focus is being lost somewhat.

If you want to refocus, fine, but... do it in a brotherly way, brothers!!!

JH

 

[Peters]

You still have not answered my question regarding Proverbs 22:6.

Is Proverbs 22:6 a promise from God? Yes.
Nevertheless, does Proverbs 22:6 hold true 100% of the time? No.

Is the fifth commandment a promise from God? Yes.
Nevertheless, does it hold true 100% of the time? No.

You are equating a promise based on human obedience for fulfilment with a promise based on the grace of God for fulfilment. You ought not to do this.

I feel as though Scripture is being blatantly ignored and blown off here.

Indeed, it is. You turned John 8 on its head.

You guys are hilarious and a little bit mad. I don´t think I can explain things any better than I already have, and since I can sense this is starting to get nasty, it´s probably best to call it a day.

I would encourage anyone who has been reading this thread to head over to the Baptist section of the Covenant Theology Forum where the root issue is being discussed in the thread: How can Baptists consider themselves "œCovenant Theologians"?

Peace be unto you, brothers.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Indeed, it is. You turned John 8 on its head.

I don't recall ever mentioning that passage. If you want to address the Scripture I presented to you, then I'd be glad to give you an explanation for John 8.

You guys are hilarious and a little bit mad.

Thankfully, all immature ad hominem is easily reversed.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Marcos...

I was trying to take the moral high ground and you come in with the ad hominem smackdown...

*sigh*

JH

(take with pinch of salt)

 

[Peters]

It was a bit of fun. No harm intended, i promise.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Just so long as Gabe knows, Marcos. He is vicious...



You might wake up with a horses head in your bed or something...

JH

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
You might wake up with a horses head in your bed or something...

And then all the paedobaptists on this board will start

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Don't anger Italians.