How about Colosians 2:11-12?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.
David, your are not interacting with the board members when you only restate what you think in one liner comments. You really aren't communicating with the other board members.

Let me just add another observation here. Remember, Jeremiah 32 follows Jeremiah 31 when the New Covenant is spoken of.


Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

David, if you are not going to answer in a more appropriate way maybe you should learn to ask questions and try to understand what is being noted to you. instead of just popping off one liners, where you only repeat what you think, try to listen and understand.

Since you mention the New Covenant I will let you read something I discovered. I learned it from listening to Reverend Winzer when he participated on the PB.

The more I read Hebrews 8 the more I think I understand about how the shadows have passed away (v. 5) and how a lot of the modern Church is not reading this text or Jeremiah 31 correctly. There is a Priesthood that is being extinguished here and one that is being exalted. We no longer need the shadows or Levitical Priesthood to mediate and teach us since Christ (the substance) has become the High Priest and removed the shadows. The Substance is here and we can approach God directly through Christ by His Holy Spirit. The veil was torn from top to bottom. As the text repeated from Jeremiah 31 states they all shall know God from the least to the greatest. His Law will be placed in all of our hearts without the need for a Levitical Priest to mediate His word to us. That is the part that is being missed. This is about the transference of priesthood from the shadows and types to Christ our High Priest and antitype. We have a better Covenant with a better Priest who is in heaven now. Christ is a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. We no longer will tell our neighbor to go seek out the local Priest to mediate God’s word for us. For it has now been written and is mediated differently since Christ our High Priest has come.

(1 Timothy 2:5,6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

My point about this is that I read the text saying that the New Covenant is about a regenerate Church membership when the text isn’t about that but about how the Word of God is mediated and about how we have a better High Priest and Covenant now that the shadows are done away with. Does that make sense?

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
David, please start to interact better with the other participants.
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ironically, the Baptist church at which I was a member for four years, and at which I interned, all while I was still a convinced Baptist, would not baptize somebody who said only this.
Why is that ironic? I would hope that NO church (now) would baptize anyone for that sort of confession.

I made it clear that there is a difference between a disciple of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth before He was revealed to be the Christ and a disciple of Jesus Christ, Son of God after it was revealed that He was the Christ.

Did you actually read my post?
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
David, please start to interact better with the other participants.
Many have told him this before. He does not take heart the counsel of his brothers and sisters on here. I am not sure where the disconnect is. It degrades the threads for those that read through them with the earnest intentions of learning from them. It is getting to the point of becoming intolerable. I mean this with all love and respect. I truly do.
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Many have told him this before. He does not take heart the counsel of his brothers and sisters on here. I am not sure where the disconnect is. It degrades the threads for those that read through them with the earnest intentions of learning from them. It is getting to the point of becoming intolerable. I mean this with all love and respect. I truly do.
My concern is that whenever I list scriptures, I seem to be shouted down, while the main prominent views of say infant baptism are given forth as if they are only way to view the position bring discussed.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
My concern is that whenever I list scriptures, I seem to be shouted down, while the main prominent views of say infant baptism are given forth as if they are only way to view the position bring discussed.
David, You know I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and I dialogued with this board concerning the verses and contexts. I am not sure if I ever felt like I was shouted down. I did get in some heated debates and I think I did a pretty good job defending the RB position as I argued from a contextual and confessional stand point. I didn't just give one line answers saying the same thing over and over. I even discussed this passage from the RB position many years ago. Remember I saw discontinuity between the Covenants. Maybe you should go back in the archives and read some of the discussions. Mind you also that I believed as other RB's that there were stand alone Covenants such as the Mosaic Covenant. You need to learn how to discuss these things from good solid teaching. I read more than a few books and articles on the topics of Covenant Theology and Baptism. I was able to argue somewhat intelligently and back up my understanding of the texts being discussed. I didn't use Exclamation points behind one liner statements to try to get my points across.

When you just repeat one liner statements repeatedly without fully considering, reading, and responding to the thoughts of other posters it makes things confusing and doesn't advance the conversation. I am all for you David. Learn how to listen and interact with these guys. You may win some and you may prove to others that their positions are legit. Just stop repeating the one liner drive by's. They are not doing anyone any good.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Exception, but not the norm.
how do u know whats God's norm?

So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face of so many of your posts; u see the issue, David? On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
how do u know whats God's norm?

So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face os so many of your posts; u see the issue, David. On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.
I do not tie water baptism into equating one is within the community of faith.
David, your are not interacting with the board members when you only restate what you think in one liner comments. You really aren't communicating with the other board members.

Let me just add another observation here. Remember, Jeremiah 32 follows Jeremiah 31 when the New Covenant is spoken of.


Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

David, if you are not going to answer in a more appropriate way maybe you should learn to ask questions and try to understand what is being noted to you. instead of just popping off one liners, where you only repeat what you think, try to listen and understand.

Since you mention the New Covenant I will let you read something I discovered. I learned it from listening to Reverend Winzer when he participated on the PB.



David, please start to interact better with the other participants.
I used to see Jeremiah 31 as just being tied to future national Israel, but do see that promised NC to all the Israel of God today, saved Jews and Gentiles, and also applying towards saved Jews right at time of the Second Coming of Christ. seems to be a dual fulfillment, or maybe a partial to a full one?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David, You know I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and I dialogued with this board concerning the verses and contexts. I am not sure if I ever felt like I was shouted down. I did get in some heated debates and I think I did a pretty good job defending the RB position as I argued from a contextual and confessional stand point. I didn't just give one line answers saying the same thing over and over. I even discussed this passage from the RB position many years ago. Remember I saw discontinuity between the Covenants. Maybe you should go back in the archives and read some of the discussions. Mind you also that I believed as other RB's that there were stand alone Covenants such as the Mosaic Covenant. You need to learn how to discuss these things from good solid teaching. I read more than a few books and articles on the topics of Covenant Theology and Baptism. I was able to argue somewhat intelligently and back up my understanding of the texts being discussed. I didn't use Exclamation points behind one liner statements to try to get my points across.

When you just repeat one liner statements repeatedly without fully considering, reading, and responding to the thoughts of other posters it makes things confusing and doesn't advance the conversation. I am all for you David. Learn how to listen and interact with these guys. You may win some and you may prove to others that their positions are legit. Just stop repeating the one liner drive by's. They are not doing anyone any good.
Thank you for bring able to be respectful in your posts to me, as. I know that at times do not post what would be better clarification on my understanding of the scriptures. All of you keep rebuking in love, as I try to minimize that need here!
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I do not tie water baptism into equating one is within the community of faith.
In post 12 u say:
I am just suggesting that Paul directly tied faith in Jesus to one now being water baptized, as that would be the clear reading of the text!
In post 67, u write:

Water Baptism in the NT was the person testifying that they were now a covert and disciples of Jesus, and were now part of a local assembly of fellow believer's in Him.
U see any problems here?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I used to see Jeremiah 31 as just being tied to future national Israel, but do see that promised NC to all the Israel of God today, saved Jews and Gentiles, and also applying towards saved Jews right at time of the Second Coming of Christ. seems to be a dual fulfillment, or maybe a partial to a full one?
This is my point David. You didn't comment on what I was trying to deal with in Jeremiah 31. The changing of the guard from learning from men (Priests as mediators) to Christ our one Priest and Mediator. You are not interacting with our discussions or posts.

I am headed out to a Concert tonight. You all have a good one.
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Junior
None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.
Question begging...again.

I made it clear that there is a difference between a disciple of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth before He was revealed to be the Christ and a disciple of Jesus Christ, Son of God after it was revealed that He was the Christ.

Did you actually read my post?
Yes, brother, I read your post. What I am saying is that your different treatment of Peter I surmise is due to an insufficient definition of what a disciple is according to Scripture, which others have pointed out, as well. Of course, we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m just pointing out how I see it.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
In post 12 u say:


In post 67, u write:



U see any problems here?
No, as I see faith in Jesus as the entry way into the Community of Faith, as only those under the NC in a real sense are part of the Body of Christ, and water baptism more if confirming them into that local assembly.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Question begging...again.



Yes, brother, I read your post. What I am saying is that your different treatment of Peter I surmise is due to an insufficient definition of what a disciple is according to Scripture, which others have pointed out, as well. Of course, we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m just pointing out how I see it.
Disciples required one to be recognizing and accepting the teachings of another, as Apostles were taught of Jesus, and the converts in turn by those apostles.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
how do u know whats God's norm?

So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face of so many of your posts; u see the issue, David? On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.
Infants can be regenerated by will of God, but apart from the water baptism on them, correct? God can do that to any infant He chooses apart from the water.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Infants can be regenerated by will of God, but apart from the water baptism on them, correct? God can do that to any infant He chooses apart from the water.
Yes, but many times, God uses the sacrament.

Ch 29 of the LBC states:

"Chapter 29
BAPTISM

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

of the WCF:
"I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

In other words, God can, if He chooses, to regenerate, forgive sins, ingraft, etc, if He so wills.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, but many times, God uses the sacrament.

Ch 29 of the LBC states:

"Chapter 29
BAPTISM

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

of the WCF:
"I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

In other words, God can, if He chooses, to regenerate, forgive sins, ingraft, etc, if He so wills.
Section 29 of the LBCF states it a bit differently.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
A bit.... none the less, it still says, of being ingrafted (by baptism) and remission of sins (by baptism).
Actually, states that just believer's in Jesus get water baptized, due to them already having sins forgiven/remitted. I do not hold to baptismal regeneration.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Actually, states that just believer's in Jesus get water baptized, due to them already having sins forgiven/remitted. I do not hold to baptismal regeneration.
That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:



Baptism is :
1) ordained by Jesus Christ,
2) to be to the person baptized....
a)
a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
b)of being grafted into him,
c) of remission of sins,
d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.

* not tied to the moment (WCF)

U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:



Baptism is :
1) ordained by Jesus Christ,
2) to be to the person baptized....
a)
a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
b)of being grafted into him,
c) of remission of sins,
d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.

* not tied to the moment (WCF)

U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?
Baptism points towards Jesus himself as being what saves us, as baptism is the symbol of Jesus being the Ark that saves.
 

RPEphesian

Puritan Board Junior
That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:



Baptism is :
1) ordained by Jesus Christ,
2) to be to the person baptized....
a)
a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
b)of being grafted into him,
c) of remission of sins,
d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.

* not tied to the moment (WCF)

U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?
A friend of mine once tried to get me on the purported language of presumptive regeneration in the WCF. All that was needed was to quote this back.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Baptism points towards Jesus himself as being what saves us, as baptism is the symbol of Jesus being the Ark that saves.
Right....so think this through as u already have admitted earlier, that Christ can save infants. Can Christ save infants using the waters of baptism?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Peter does NOT say the water baptism saves , but the one that we are baptized into does.The 1689 states that baptism itself does not save the sinner but faith in Christ does!
If Christ can save infants, why can't he regenerate in baptism? U never answered the question.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Pe 3:18–21.

Poole:
"The like figure; Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb. 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world:

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 911.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
If Christ can save infants, why can't he regenerate in baptism? U never answered the question.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Pe 3:18–21.

Poole:
"The like figure; Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb. 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world:

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 911.
Are you arguing for baptismal regeneration?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Are you arguing for baptismal regeneration?
By u asking that, it shows me that u don't understand the actual process.

The sign(baptism) and thing signified (salvation) are not one and the same. However, as I have shown in both confessions, it can be, if God so wills.

For example, how is it that both confessions say that in baptism, certain things occur, sometimes:

b)of being grafted into him,
c) of remission of sins,

Not everytime , i.e. 'not tied to the moment'. Meaning, God is not obligated to save a person during the baptism. But, He can, and does as He sees fit.

Does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?

So, to answer directly; Baptismal regeneration is Reformed. BR, like Rome espouses, is aberrant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top