Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
And let me be clear, although it is instinctual for man to sin, that does not make all sin instinctual. Is it instinctual or willful to commit adultry?
???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And let me be clear, although it is instinctual for man to sin, that does not make all sin instinctual. Is it instinctual or willful to commit adultry?
It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace. If so then the only sins for which they must account for are actual sins for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?
Please point me to where this has been proposed. Such an understanding is certainly inconsistent with Reformed theology, and the proposer needs to be reminded to refrain from advocating unconfessional positions.
The Confession clearly states that not all sins are equal.
Bob, "not equal" meaning what?
On the one hand you say original and actual sins are "not equal," implying one is less culpable(?) than the other. On the other you say,
implying they are both culpable.I never said actual sins are the only ones deserving God's judgment.
So, what is the difference you say exists doctrinally, from the standpoint of their deserving God's judgment?
to form an opinion which requires speculation as to what the confession means
All sin deserves judgment and man is culpable, however, the Reformed position is that grace is bestowed through the new covenant for both Original Sin and actual sins committed before we are believers correct?
It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace. If so then the only sins for which they must account for are actual sins for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?
Please point me to where this has been proposed. Such an understanding is certainly inconsistent with Reformed theology, and the proposer needs to be reminded to refrain from advocating unconfessional positions.
It was not a board member who proposed this directly, it was Rev. Bryn MacPhail in his article titled: John Calvin: Infant Baptism Here is a direct quote as taken from the link in post #35
[...]
I am not particularly inclined to agree with Rev. Bryn McPhail or John Calvin in this particular matter because as I stated, it would rely on the works of the parents to have baptism administered if the concept of baptism being a seal is correct. I'm a little confused here whether it is merely a sign or it is a seal, the two seem to be used interchangeably but to me have very different connotations) I guess the concept of federal headship could be evoked here saying that the child was in the father when the father believed and therefore the covenant of grace extended to the father is extended to the child? If this is correct then as long as believing parents have their child baptized and the covenant is sealed, and their children do likewise, then all continuing practitioners continuing in the covenant all will be saved? I am not sure I would embrace this as the basis for sound doctrine.
So, are infants "Holy" due to sanctification in the womb" brought about by their parents belief and being members of the covenant community?
to form an opinion which requires speculation as to what the confession means
We assume the Confessions are intended to be clear,
that was their purpose- to clearly summarize the doctrine of Scripture on the matters to which they speak.
To be understood as a unifying basis for communion.
That's not based on them being "untouchable" because of speculation.
All sin deserves judgment and man is culpable, however, the Reformed position is that grace is bestowed through the new covenant for both Original Sin and actual sins committed before we are believers correct?
It sounds now like you are agreeing with the Helvetic and other Confessions now but then you add "however." God initiates (first) grace by regenerating a person, yes.
But what does that have to do with your earlier points about infants (possibly adults) not being culpable for sin because of "instinct?"
Hello again, Bob – I see you’re really trying to come to grips with this teaching of Scripture (though you may not be so sure it is of Scripture).
Neither circumcision nor baptism are “the works of the parents” but simply a faith-based response of obedience to a command of God. A question for you, Bob: are you, as a Christian, to be considered the seed of Abraham? This is significant, for the command to Abraham was, “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised” (Gen 17:10). Throughout the entire Jewish era, from Abraham to Christ, this was required of all males who were to enter the Abrahamic covenant. Paul talks of it on this wise:
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11-12).
Back to the question, Are you of the seed of Abraham? Paul (again) says,
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:27, 29).
Up until this point, we are just arguing minor interpretation differences and semantic points but here it begins to get a little touchy for me. You say that baptism is the equivalent of signing a legal transaction. We know that an unsigned legal certificate is worth nothing more than the paper which it is written on. The signing is actually just as important as the document itself. Perhaps this is twisting your words a bit, but are you not hereby attributing equal redemptive value to the act of baptism and belief(faith)? What if one dies in a unbaptized state?This is so because Paul just finished saying that the covenant promise (that God would be Abraham’s and his seeds’ God) was realized in Christ (Gal 3:16) and that the covenant was not annulled by the law but continued on until and into Christ (Gal 3:3:17, 18), and if you are “baptized into Christ” (Gal 3:27) you are Abraham’s seed because you are in THE Seed of Abraham. So those covenant commands back in Genesis 17 are still in force for the seed, only the “token” (Gen 17:11) – i.e., the sign – has changed because entrance into the covenant has been universalized so as to receive women and girls. You will note the language above of Paul, that he calls it a sign – aka a token – meaning an outward mark or signifier, and also a seal, meaning a certifying sign, as in a legal transaction. Though closely related, there is a marked distinction between sign and seal. You may also have heard the expression, that circumcision of old and baptism of the present are outward signs of an inward reality, or outward signifiers of an inward substance.
Now I realize it gets less clear at this point. But until this point it is unmistakably clear – unless one’s baptistic lens fogs up the clear statements and requirements of Scripture.
How the Lord works with regard to these two signs and seals – though we will henceforth refer only to the present token, baptism – may be mysterious (indiscernible) to us. Yet keep in mind this in God’s eyes was always a spiritual transaction between God and His people, as it is written,i
I have difficulty with the link between circumcision of the heart and baptism, I assume this is because of my predisposition to Baptist bias. I am however diligently studying and appreciate you information, links etc. from which you support your view.
I am trying to refocus away from the issue of paedo baptism to the original question of infants committing sin, but I do see them as inseparable if the baptism=covenant=redemption for children of believers theory is credible as this would mean that the Holy Spirit would prevent them from committing sin and preserve them if they are called, at least until they make a conscious confession.
Infants born to one or more believing parents are federally holy, included in the administration of the covenant of grace. When dying in infancy, there is no reason to doubt that they were elect. But their inclusion in the administration of the covenant of grace, their membership in the visible church, does not in and of itself identify them as elect or regenerate or justified. Later they may have a definite conversion experience, or they might grow up in such a way that they cannot remember any time when they were not believers - that is up to the Spirit, who blows where he wills. They may be like Timothy; like Nicodemus; like Caiaphas - there's no way to tell ahead of time. Adopting a "wait-and-see" approach logically results in deferring baptism until death seems near, because they might always apostasize tomorrow.
I would suggest consulting Robert Shaw's The Reformed Faith (a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith) as a principal aid in understanding the language of the confession, and the concepts of Reformed theology.
Just a quick question. How does this measure up to the following passage?I do not believe I am the seed of Abraham. I believe I am an adopted son with all legal rights and inheritance of a legitimate son. I believe Paul was speaking to Jews.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Paul is also clear that circumcision is of no value unless one intends to keep the mosaic law.
No. It was David who confessed that his mother had conceived him in sin, though he was federally holy.If they are federally holy then they would not be conceived in sin even from the womb because they existed in the federal headship prior to conception correct?
Incorrect. A professing believer, baptized as an adult is also one in whose flesh dwells no good thing.If the are federally holy then the inclination to sin is not in them.
No. Do you know what federal holiness means?If they are federally holy , then they do not commit actual sins and are not guilty of Original Sin as one cannot be sinful and holy simultaneously correct?
Great!The concept of "never remember a time when they were not believers" is a bit foreign to me as a Baptist but I understand what you are saying and see no biblical requirement for a "salvation experience" moment as long as they have grown into a full understanding of the gospel, have accepted it by faith, and have not departed along the way.
Do you concede that all sins are not equal?
I believe it is quite clear that although we are all sinners, Original or Actual, not all will be held equally accountable.
Do you concede that all sins are not equal? If you do not concede that all sins are not equal, or that there is a difference between Original Sin as defined by the Confession and Actual Sin as defined by the Confession then we can go no further.
Those who are not held accountable for sin are 1) those who were not knowledgeable of the law (as found in Romans 5:13 "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.") and 2) those who have placed their faith in the atonement of Christs blood (as found in Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.")
These are the only ones who I believe are assured of salvation.
Please explain federal holiness if I have not already done it above
Q. 37. How are children of professing parents designated in scripture?
A. If any one of the parents be a visible believer, or regular church-member, the children, on that account, are called holy, 1 Cor. 7:14 -- "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."
Q. 38. What holiness is here meant?
A. Federal holiness, or being admitted to church membership, together with their believing or professing parent.
Q. 39. May not this holiness be understood of legitimacy, or being lawfully begotten?
A. No; because marriage being an ordinance of the law of nature, the children of married parents, though both of them be infidels, are as lawfully begotten as those of professing Christians.
Q. 40. How does federal holiness entitle an infant to baptism?
A. Federal holiness necessarily supposes a being within the covenant, in virtue of the credible profession of the parent; and, consequently, a right to the initiatory seal of it.