Jesus' Sermon on the Mount - Who was He Speaking to?

[kceaster]

Martin...

So I would go back to proof that disciple in the strictest sense only means adult. Again, from talmidim in Hebrew you cannot argue. The disciples of the Jewish people included children, so you'd have to come up with a positive change for this. If they were circumcised, they were taught, it is plain and simple.

Further, the males 13 years old and above were allowed to read and expound Scripture in the Synagogue. How did they learn how to do that? Were they given a 6 week discipleship course prior to their 13th birthday?

They were disciples from birth. So are our children. We are to teach them all the days they live.

Disciple is not just an adult. Disciples are children. Don't believe me? Ask Timothy. And don't say it is because he made a profession, either. He was taught the Scriptures even before it was his own volition to be a disciple.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Steve Owen]

I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant. On the day of Pentecost and thereafter, it is clear that a disciple was also one who professed repentance and trust in Christ for salvation (Acts 2:41 etc).

I reject your comparison of disciples and talmidim. You are confusing the New and Old Covenants.

Martin

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I'd just reaffirm what I said, and wht Rich and Kevin said. There's been nothing said to overthrow any of it exegetically.

Infants and little children are not only owners of the Kingdom of heaven, but are disciples and mature in the faith whether they embrace it or not (by grace). Adults should rest on grace, just like little children and infants, not on thier own profession, works, or abilities.

 

[kceaster]

Martin....

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant. On the day of Pentecost and thereafter, it is clear that a disciple was also one who professed repentance and trust in Christ for salvation (Acts 2:41 etc).

I reject your comparison of disciples and talmidim. You are confusing the New and Old Covenants.

Martin

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

So, I'm curious. Where in the New Covenant does it say anything about not including children? Jeremiah 31 starts off by saying this: "At the same time," says the LORD, "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people." Not individuals, not heads of households, not adult confessing believers, but the God of the family and they shall be His people.

When did this prophecy get fulfilled? And how, if it was fulfilled, is the infant of the family not included in the people of God?

In Christ,

KC

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
1. Of course Jesus blessed the children. Where do I suggest that He didn't? What neither He nor His disciples did was baptize them.

Which you know a priori and derive by eisegesis but not from the Scriptures themselves.

2. Our Lord used many illustrations for our benefit, including an unjust steward and a judge who didn't fear God. Why shouldn't He use little children?

Come on, Rich; you're better than this!

While I certainly thank you for the confidence that you have in me, I don't believe there is any substance lacking in my criticism of your assumptions.

While I agree He used illustrations, in the immediate context of the passage in question it makes very little sense to say that the Kingdom belongs to little children and then use the very children He is blessing as examples of type of faith that is required of New Covenant believers and conclude they are neither members of the kingdom nor have any real kingdom faith but are convenient props to drive a point home.

Also, what kind of faith, precisely, is required of a New Covenant believer? Since you equate New Covenant membership with the invisible Church the bar must be very high indeed. Would such faith not be salvific in nature? Christ surely could not be speaking idly about just any kind of empty trust like a blind trust in a false God or the tooth fairy could He? Where else does Christ equate true faith in Him as anything less?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Peters
Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...

Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one. This is kind of a sidebar discussion but was very interesting because I had never noticed that it said Christ was baptizing folks before.

As a Marine, I have an innate appreciation for things attributed to the leader which are done by those given authority to act on one's behalf. It makes perfect sense that the baptisms be attributed to Him as the one sending just as the words of the Apostles are Scripture on account of their derivative authority.

 

[Steve Owen]

Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one.

There! I knew you were a clever fellow all along! :bigsmile:

Martin

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Peters
Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...

Yeah, I agree with Martin on this one. This is kind of a sidebar discussion but was very interesting because I had never noticed that it said Christ was baptizing folks before.

As a Marine, I have an innate appreciation for things attributed to the leader which are done by those given authority to act on one's behalf. It makes perfect sense that the baptisms be attributed to Him as the one sending just as the words of the Apostles are Scripture on account of their derivative authority.

Kind of like saying, "Bill Gates is taking over the computer world" when it is understood that it is Microsoft we are referring to.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I find the credo-only argument a very hard sell when it comes to reconciling Jesus' promises to His Church.

Shall I refrain from teaching or allowing the church to teach my child all that Jesus commanded until my child makes a confession that may or may not be a genuine reflection of a regenerate heart?

When figuring my monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age? If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ? That sounds ridiculous, but so does the Baptist argument in light of these household promises.

Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?

Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?

I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach.

God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!

 

[Peters]

When figuring monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age?

If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ?

Does God never permit His people to suffer these things?

Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?

We hold our newborn children assuming that the earth is the Lord´s and everything in it.

We hold our newborn children assuming that God can make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.

We hold our newborn children assuming that God saves those form whom Christ has died.

We hold our newborn children begging and pleading God to save them.

Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?

Treat them the way God treats you.

I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach.

Unbelievable.

God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!

Brother, do you realize what you are saying to your Baptist brothers and sisters when you write something like this in this context?

 

[kceaster]

I believe Chris is simply putting it in terms you will finally see as inconsistent in your own behavior. Of course you expect God to bless your children. Of course you pray that God will save them. You believe just as much for your kids as we do.

So what's the difference?

We're trusting in God to save them as only He can do. While you are trusting God only so far as your children give a profession of faith and live a life of "seeming" fruit and repentence. You won't believe the promise of God until you have some assurance of it.

But we can't trust in that kind of assurance. If we could, then we would truly know who is and who isn't a Christian.

You have to see that you can't have it both ways. God's salvation cannot be sovereign if you will only choose to believe it from evidences you see with your eyes and hear with your ears.

We're essentially the same on this, guys. The problem is we believe without seeing, whereas you won't believe until you see.

Maybe I'm way off, but explain how it is any other way.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Peters]

We're trusting in God to save them as only He can do. While you are trusting God only so far as your children give a profession of faith and live a life of "seeming" fruit and repentance.

If God grants our children faith in Christ through the gospel, then they will be saved. Is this not God´s way of salvation?

You won't believe the promise of God until you have some assurance of it.

But we can't trust in that kind of assurance. If we could, then we would truly know who is and who isn't a Christian.

God does not promise to save *our* children, He promises to save *His* children, brother. There is no infallible test to discern the presence of true faith in the soul (being born to believers included), but the Scripture gives plenty of pointers that we may lawfully use to discern, in part, such a thing.

You have to see that you can't have it both ways. God's salvation cannot be sovereign if you will only choose to believe it from evidences you see with your eyes and hear with your ears.

Brother, this doesn´t make sense to me. Would God have me believe a person to be saved who consistently displays the old nature? I do not think the Scriptures teach this. But I´m willing to see (no pun intended).

We're essentially the same on this, guys. The problem is we believe without seeing, whereas you won't believe until you see.

Again, it´s not that I won´t believe God saves, but that I have no business believing that God *has* saved a person if they consistently manifest the old nature.

You believe that a covenant child is saved unless they eventually prove otherwise. But what does that look like? Isn't it as long as they don´t live and talk like some pagan down the street. You use exactly the same biblical method to discern whether or not an individual has been granted true faith that I do, do you not?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Peters

When figuring monthly budget for food and clothing, must I trust God will provide to feed and cloth just my spouse and I since my children are not at a professing age?

If we do not have enough funds left over to feed or cloth our children, then we must conclude it is because they have not put their trust in Christ?

Does God never permit His people to suffer these things?

Are our children His people? Do you worry about such things? Should you? Should your children worry, why or why not?

Originally posted by Peters

Does a Baptist hold their newborn infant assuming they are a child of the devil (from the line of the serpent) or a blessing from God who providentially brought forth this child from the womb of a covenant household?

We hold our newborn children assuming that the earth is the Lord´s and everything in it.

So who are you oh man to determine when your child is to benefit from His church? Whose standards must infants meet? Who do you trust in saving, God or your perception and judgment?

Originally posted by Peters
We hold our newborn children assuming that God can make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.

But only an audible and and understandable confession will accurately reveal the heart of such lumps?

Originally posted by Peters
We hold our newborn children assuming that God saves those form whom Christ has died.

As do we, but I don´t know who is elect, nor do you. We simply trust God and His promises, thanking him for blessing us with children and allowing them to not only be taught by His church, but to be baptized into her fold (see Christ's commission to His Church).

Originally posted by Peters
We hold our newborn children begging and pleading God to save them.

But be consistent, they are not saved in your eyes until they make a confession, "œGoo goo gaga" will not do. Until that confession forbid them from addressing God as Father, warn them that they have grounds to worry about food and clothing, and refrain from teaching them all that Jesus commanded until they can also be baptized.

Originally posted by Peters

Are my 2, 3, and 4 year old children disciples of Christ being that they are learning everything He commanded from the church? OR should we treat them as wolves and goats?

Treat them the way God treats you.

Righteous through Christ?

Originally posted by Peters

I love my Baptist brothers, but am saddened that they do not see the blatant individualism and man-centered requirements that they preach.

Unbelievable.

Marcos, from my perspective, you are giving the message to my children that their being in my household means nothing because of man´s judgment. Yet you will make disciples by teaching but not baptizing because of your perception of what the heart looks like. God chooses, not me, so all I can do is serve the Lord by obedience as directed through such passages as Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6, and Colossians 3. I don´t wait for a mere sign that may or may not be accurate. I assume and obey, because that is all I can do. Whether the child has learned to speak in a language I can understand or is still speaking gibberish, I will treat him as a child of God for the worse case is that he is in fact not, but I faithfully obeyed and trust in the Potter to do as He pleases. I am His servant and will not stand in the way of a glorious promise because I simply do not understand what is getting though to my child and what is not.

Originally posted by Peters

God's grace is beautiful and far from individualistic. As the federal head or representative of my house I will confidently declare, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD!

Brother, do you realize what you are saying to your Baptist brothers and sisters when you write something like this in this context?

I realize I am saying that Baptists are inconsistent and impose a condition that hinders all children simply because they have not learned to speak yet. As a federal head of my house, I will speak for my household. While I am equally yoked to my wife, and our children are under our care, we will all serve the Lord, regenerate or not, I DON´T ULTIMATELY KNOW, we will all fear God and obey His commandments. When our children are old, we pray they do not depart from the ways we instructed them, but if they ultimately do, then they will be cursed like all those who do not fear God. But while they are in my house, they will serve the Lord and will be instructed by the Church, and will trust God to provide, and will address Him as their Father and savior.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Peters
If God grants our children faith in Christ through the gospel, then they will be saved. Is this not God´s way of salvation?

Absolutely. But when you claim that God's promises are not sure UNTIL, they do such a thing, aren't you claiming that outward signs MUST accompany or else the person is not saved. Doesn't that mean that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as you state below that we cannot know) who is saved and who isn't.

God's promise is sure from the foundation of the world. We can unequivocally say that each of His promises, whether for good or ill, will come to pass. They do not need outward manifestation to be sure.

The best example that I can give you is if a father promises to take his child to the ocean. The child believes in the promise and waits patiently (as patient as a child can be) for the father to fulfill it. Now if the father had promised many times before to do this thing and had done it for the child's siblings when they were younger, but not to this particular child; the child knows, from the stories that the other children have told, that the father will do what he says. The child believes because the father has made good his promises to the other children.

We have that kind of example in God, our Father. He promises to save, to take us to the ocean of His grace, to be a God to us and to our children. He's saved countless other children and what's more, He's saved us. There is more reason to believe His promise is sure, than to believe it not. But reason alone can't help us. The Spirit bears witness that the promises of God are true. We don't need proof. We don't have to wait until God takes us to the ocean.

Do you see how you might doubt God who is strong to save by not believing the promises for your children?

God does not promise to save *our* children, He promises to save *His* children, brother. There is no infallible test to discern the presence of true faith in the soul (being born to believers included), but the Scripture gives plenty of pointers that we may lawfully use to discern, in part, such a thing.

I really can't help you, here. If you don't believe that God promises to be a God to us and to our children, then I don't know what to say. The New Covenant promises that God will be a God to us and to our children. You can't get more biblical than that.

And, by the way, they're all His children who bear the mark of baptism. If He calls Israel His bride when they were all covenant breakers, then there is no reason to assume that the children of a covenant family are not His children. That does not mean that salvation is automatic. It means that salvation is of the Lord, not of the profession of faith. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. We trust in His promise, not in our promise.

Brother, this doesn´t make sense to me. Would God have me believe a person to be saved who consistently displays the old nature? I do not think the Scriptures teach this. But I´m willing to see (no pun intended).

Brother, our children need the discipline of the Lord just as we do. But the covenant children at my church, although wicked and evil sinners by nature, are not children of wrath.

I consistenly display my old nature. Does that mean I'm not saved? Do you still sin? Do you need someone to remind you to repent? This is no different than our children. They mess up, they need discipline, they need to say they're sorry. They need to ask God's forgiveness. How is this different from you or I? Baptized infants still sin. The mark on them does not mean that the Holy Spirit has altogether sanctified them. They must be converted. That's why we preach the gospel in our covenant communion.

But the first part of your question is important. Would God have you believe a person to be saved...? Where is it written that God requires us to believe a person is saved? We are to be sure about our own salvation, and we are to hope for the salvation of others. We exhort, encourage, rebuke, and correct, but where is it written that we must be assured of another's salvation? God has not made us the judge of His own servants. If we must know and believe a person to be saved, then it must mean that we are their judge. While we will judge the nations, we will not judge each other. God does not need you to believe a person is saved in order for Him to save. He needs you to believe in Him for everyone. To hope in Him for everyone.

Again, it´s not that I won´t believe God saves, but that I have no business believing that God *has* saved a person if they consistently manifest the old nature.

You believe that a covenant child is saved unless they eventually prove otherwise. But what does that look like? Isn't it as long as they don´t live and talk like some pagan down the street. You use exactly the same biblical method to discern whether or not an individual has been granted true faith that I do, do you not?

Our children are held to a pretty high standard, and I cannot imagine you doing otherwise. As I said above, they need discipline. They need the oxgoad (the Hebrew farm implement that is the basis for the Hebrew word for teach and learn), they need to be taught to fear the LORD.

But if you were consistent, then you would rebuke these children of wrath, but you could not correct them. For, in correcting them, you are treating them as sons. If they are sons of the devil, then doesn't it more befit the situation that you would just leave them alone, that you wouldn't plead with them to repent and change their ways? I cannot imagine any Christian parent doing that with a child. I know some have because they believed the lie that heavy-handed discipline somehow mistreats the child. But the Bible teaches that if the rod is spared, the child will be rotten.

If you suggest that we treat these children as a rank pagan, because that is what in their hearts they are if they have not professed faith in Christ, then discipline should be tossed out the window. Let them go. Let them be as bad as they want to be.

But I know you don't agree with that. You agree with bringing up the child in the fear and admonition of the LORD. Why? Just because He's told you to? Or, do you have the hope that He will save them if it is His will to do so? You do have that hope, and so you discipline them. In other word's, you make disciples of Christ.

If you could only get past the profession of faith and baptism; if you could lay aside the individual will of each person and see that this is holy child-rearing; then you may be able to see why we believe the promises of God BEFORE they are manifest. We expect that the child will fear the LORD, we do not suggest they do. We demand it. Is that coercion? Unless the young ox is taught to plow straight, how can they ever? Under your system, you expect them to plow straight before they are taught to do so. I cannot see where the Bible suggests this even in the remotest sense.

In Christ,

KC

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by kceaster

The best example that I can give you is if a father promises to take his child to the ocean. The child believes in the promise and waits patiently (as patient as a child can be) for the father to fulfill it. Now if the father had promised many times before to do this thing and had done it for the child's siblings when they were younger, but not to this particular child; the child knows, from the stories that the other children have told, that the father will do what he says. The child believes because the father has made good his promises to the other children.

We have that kind of example in God, our Father. He promises to save, to take us to the ocean of His grace, to be a God to us and to our children. He's saved countless other children and what's more, He's saved us. There is more reason to believe His promise is sure, than to believe it not. But reason alone can't help us. The Spirit bears witness that the promises of God are true. We don't need proof. We don't have to wait until God takes us to the ocean.

It seems to me that your analogy just means that the father might make a promise to that last child and then not take her to the ocean. I am curious than, as to how many children within each camp do come to profess their faith. Anybody have numbers?

And, by the way, they're all His children who bear the mark of baptism. If He calls Israel His bride when they were all covenant breakers, then there is no reason to assume that the children of a covenant family are not His children. .

I would appreciate a Scriptural reference that would explain that God was referring to all of Israel when he called her his Bride. After all, Paul said that not all Israel is Israel.

Keep up the debate. And continue to keep it civil.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by gwine
It seems to me that your analogy just means that the father might make a promise to that last child and then not take her to the ocean. I am curious than, as to how many children within each camp do come to profess their faith. Anybody have numbers?

Well, all analogies break down, but I believe in this one, the father took the child to the ocean, but it did not enjoy it enough to want to come back. It tasted the good fruits of the beach, it took in the warmth of the sun, and bathed in the cool waters, but in the end the child turned away and didn't want to go back.

Such as was God with the children of Israel. All passed through the waters, but God was displeased with many of them. He promised salvation by removing them from Egypt. All were removed, but not all went into the land.

If you want numbers, I believe that all of the elect were at one point children. But as to how many from each camp, it is not really ours to say, is it? How many hypocrites exist in each camp? How many will there be on Judgment Day who will cry out, "Lord, Lord?"

I would appreciate a Scriptural reference that would explain that God was referring to all of Israel when he called her his Bride. After all, Paul said that not all Israel is Israel.

Keep up the debate. And continue to keep it civil.

Jer. 31:32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

Again, all came out, but not all went in. Isn't that the visible, invisible church right there in that statement?

In Christ,

KC

 

[gwine]

Thanks for the Jeremiah reference.

The question I was asking about the numbers was more directed to members of the PB, not statistics from the church community at large. I know families on both sides of the fence who have offspring (adult children) who have not as yet made a profession of faith and/or show no signs as yet that they will. I would say that I am batting 50% at this point (my 2 sons are 23 and 24), so the question is somewhat personal. You don't have to answer if you don't want, and I am looking more for numbers regarding adult children, say 18 and older.

 

[kceaster]

Gerry...

I can answer in about 5 years. Right now they seem to be exhibiting fruits in keeping with repentence. My wife and I pray and hope that God will help them improve their baptism and make good their profession of faith.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Steve Owen]

Kevin wrote:-

Jer. 31:32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

Again, all came out, but not all went in. Isn't that the visible, invisible church right there in that statement?

I think you just shot yourself through the foot, Kevin!
'All came out, but not all went in' is 'according to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is 'all came out (of the world) and all go in (to the Kingdom of God)' 'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.'

Martin

 

[piningforChrist]

Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.

 

[kceaster]

Feeling no pain in my foot...

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I think you just shot yourself through the foot, Kevin!
'All came out, but not all went in' is 'according to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is 'all came out (of the world) and all go in (to the Kingdom of God)' 'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.'

Martin

EISOGESIS. The OC foreshadows the NC. Egypt is a type of the world, and the Land of Promise is a type of the kingdom of God. If there are visible/invisible distinctions in the old, there are visible/invisible distinctions in the new.

It breaks down practically for you, because many adult professing believers have been baptized (which you would say entered the kingdom of God) but have turned their back on their profession and the Christ they professed. If they all know, then in knowing they have done the impossible; they have thwarted God in salvation.

In Christ,

KC

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by piningforChrist

Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.

ok"¦

And apparently it is up to man to make the determination if this is the case or not?

You may want to read the thread before you reiterate what has already been unpacked (and in my opinion dismantled ).

 

[Peters]

Are our children His people?

If they are clothed in the Son by grace through faith alone, yes.

Do you worry about such things?

(I´ll take this question as referring to nakedness and hunger and not to your first question) No.

Should you?

No

Should your children worry, why or why not?

It depends whether or not they are clothed in the Son by grace through alone.

So who are you oh man to determine when your child is to benefit from His church?

Our children benefit from the church all the time. What do you mean?

Whose standards must infants meet?

For what? For salvation? They must believe the Gospel.

Who do you trust in saving, God or your perception and judgment?

I don´t understand why you´re asking these questions. This one doesn´t even make sense. In what sense could "œtrusting in my perception and judgment" ever accomplish salvation? Please answer my initial question: Do the people of God ever suffer hunger and nakedness?

But only an audible and understandable confession will accurately reveal the heart of such lumps?

Not infallibly, no. But it is a standard given to us to in the Scriptures to discern *in part*.

As do we, but I don´t know who is elect, nor do you.

Agreed, but we do know unto whom Adam´s transgression and guilt is imputed "“ his posterity.

We simply trust God and His promises, thanking him for blessing us with children and allowing them to not only be taught by His church, but to be baptized into her fold (see Christ's commission to His Church).

Isn´t it that He promises to be *their* God? What happens to that promise if the child proves to be an unbeliever? How could that happen? *They* break the covenant? You know what that sounds like, don´t you? Exactly the kind of Arminianism that Baptists are accused of. It works both ways.

But be consistent, they are not saved in your eyes until they make a confession, "œGoo goo gaga" will not do. Until that confession forbid them from addressing God as Father, warn them that they have grounds to worry about food and clothing, and refrain from teaching them all that Jesus commanded until they can also be baptized.

No, I will teach them what they *should* do, think, say and believe.

Righteous through Christ?

I suppose I ought to have said "œ"¦treated you." I meant love them, even though they are sinners.

Marcos, from my perspective, you are giving the message to my children that their being in my household means nothing of man´s judgment.

Sorry for that, brother. It means a great deal that they´re in your house, surrounded by the light of the Gospel and faithful parents. From a *human* perspective, that´s wonderful, but from a biblical perspective it doesn´t promise anything. If it did, then all children brought up faithfully in Christian homes would prove to be elect sinners. They do not.

Yet you will make disciples by teaching but not baptizing because of your perception of what the heart looks like.

It´s not *my* perception, Chris. The Bible gives us pointers (fallible pointers) all over the place to use. I´m not judging according to my own standard.

God chooses, me, so all I can do is serve the Lord by obedience as directed through such passages as Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6, and Colossians 3. I don´t wait for a mere sign that may or may not be accurate. I assume and obey, because that is all I can do.

But that´s you on you, not you on someone else.

Whether the child has learned to speak in a language I can understand or is still speaking gibberish, I will treat him as a child of God for the worse case is that he is in fact not, but I faithfully obeyed and trust in the Potter to do as He pleases. I am His servant and will not stand in the way of a glorious promise because I simply do not understand what is getting though to my child and what is not.

What you do with your children is beautiful. It´s what you presume about them that I disagree with.

I realize I am saying that Baptists are inconsistent and impose a condition that hinders all children simply because they have not learned to speak yet. As a federal head of my house, I will speak for my household. While I am equally yoked to my wife, and our children are under our care, we will all serve the Lord, regenerate or not, I DON´T ULTIMATELY KNOW, we will all fear God and obey His commandments. When our children are old, we pray they do not depart from the ways we instructed them, but if they ultimately do, then they will be cursed like all those who do not fear God. But while they are in my house, they will serve the Lord and will be instructed by the Church, and will trust God to provide, and will address Him as their Father and savior.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Peters]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Marcos, I can see we have different paradigms here and from your responses you do not understand my view of baptism and the Church (but of course, right? ).

My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.

From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her. My child is not under his own authority but under his parents. The parents do not allow (or should not allow) his choices to guide their parental steps. The parents are his authority and through obedience and wisdom as disciples themselves, they will guide him by making decisions for him (regarding how he will be raised).

The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by God Himself, in following His command to raise them as disciples. From birth my child is a disciple. I will not only teach him all that Jesus commanded, but will allow him to be taught by the church and baptized by her per Jesus´ commission in Matthew 28. Baptism and teaching by the Church go hand in hand.

So when you admit that your children benefit from the church all the time, but do not understand what I mean, I mean that you are being inconsistent and are unduly separating baptism from the Church by treating the two separate.

You are imposing a requirement on the child to give permission to baptize when first of all, they are not under their own authority, but under their parents thus making them "œholy" due to their "œholy" parents. Second you are assuming such a confession to be genuine, when it may not be at all. The baptizee may have been justified years before the confession (who knows when the actual act happens?) or will not be justified until years after (deceived into thinking they are Christians when they are really not). So you are requiring a man-centered act due to the fact that the sacrament will only be allowed if a man determines the confession to be genuine or not.

The problem we have here is confusion with baptism and salvation. Disciples are made and have been made through baptism and teaching but without salvation from a visible church point of view. Consider Ananias and Saphira and the like. Yes we discern, but in the case of those under the care of their parents who are in the confessing parents household, we give no authority to the infant.
What I presume is that they are my children and I will treat them as I am commanded to which is just like a fellow disciple. You seem to have a difficult time with the concept of assuming they are saved. Ultimately I don´t know what type of vessel God made them, but I do know how God directs me to raise them. They are a part of my household and they will not worry about material things, they will address God as Father, and learn all that Jesus commanded.

Christians need not worry about food and clothing. Their children need not worry either, for God will not provide only for the parents and turn away from their children (while under their care). To my surprise you and other Baptists are willing to admit the latter hypothetical. If you admit that then it is what it is. I find that tragic.

I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.

Grace brother,

 

[ChristopherPaul]

My wife just called me to tell me how my kids insisted on praying at lunch today. My oldest who is four concluded the little prayer session with a very drawn out prayer, praying for everyone in the family including grammy, and pappy, grandma, and papa, aunts and uncles. I was quick to ask if she prayed for me. That makes me smile.

However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?

Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

Who are we to know those whom the Lord hears? If Saddam Hussein were to pray to Christ and accept Him as Lord would you say that He would not hear him? I am having a difficult time understanding the tone of this thread insofar as whether or not God listens to the prayers of credo-baptist children or even whether their parents have a right to encourage such.

The tone of this thread is dark, indeed.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by gwine

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

However, it made me think about this thread too. My children desired to pray today to which my wife allowed them to. However, until they make a confession, I guess we must assume that God will not hear their prayers?

Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

Who are we to know those whom the Lord hears? If Saddam Hussein were to pray to Christ and accept Him as Lord would you say that He would not hear him? I am having a difficult time understanding the tone of this thread insofar as whether or not God listens to the prayers of credo-baptist children or even whether their parents have a right to encourage such.

The tone of this thread is dark, indeed.

Gerry, I agree. The first post of this thread asked who Jesus was referring to when He said the Father will reward and bless his people and they should not worry for He sees them as valuable. If an atheist or a Muslim calls on the name of Jesus, then they are no longer a Muslim or an atheist. Same with Hussein if he called on the name of Jesus. But until then, all their prayers in accordance to what they believe and actually worship are useless and they certainly can worry about life, for they do not love God (cf: Romans 8:28-29).

What our Baptist brothers are saying is our children, despite the fact that they have not learned to talk yet, should be assumed the same as the atheist, Muslim and Hussein even though they are born in and under the authority of a covenant family with two or one "holy" believing parent(s).

It is indeed dark when they are forced to carry their theology to it's logical conclusions, which they consistently have shown:

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Christopher asked

Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

Not unless they believe.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I do not say that a child cannot be a disciple.
I do say that a disciple in the Gospels is someone who is following Christ and learning from Him. Quite a young child can do these things, but not an infant.

Originally posted by piningforChrist

Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

Yes, when your children become children of Abraham, if God so pleases to grant them faith.

Originally posted by Peters

Should your children worry, why or why not?

It depends whether or not they are clothed in the Son by grace through alone.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

What our Baptist brothers are saying is our children, despite the fact that they have not learned to talk yet, should be assumed the same as the atheist, Muslim and Hussein even though they are born in and under the authority of a covenant family with two or one "holy" believing parent(s).

It is indeed dark when they are forced to carry their theology to it's logical conclusions, which they consistently have shown:

And this is where I disagree, but maybe I still don't get it (hey, Keon, should I stop now?). I don't believe the families I know would think like this. Christ himself said to the Pharisees:

Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

And they were of the circumcision. Why is it so strange to think that children, whether of credo or peado parents, are any different? In either case we are still to train them up in the way they should go.

 

[Peters]

Marcos, I can see we have different paradigms here and from your responses you do not understand my view of baptism and the Church (but of course, right? ).

Agreed

My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.

1) No one is denying that we can´t know for certain who has been regenerated. On this we agree.

2) It is *because* we do not know that we baptize on a *good* confession, a confession accompanied by marks of grace in the person´s life.

3) The reason why baptism is withheld from a baby is because it may not be regenerate. Until the infant shows marks of grace *according to the standards given in Scripture*, it must be considered as being in Adam.

From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her.

Here is the problem: Some dude says he wants to be a disciple and you baptize him, no questions asked, call him a Christian and a follower of Christ. Why? Because *you* don´t know if he´s elect or not. Not even Baptists are this bad :bigsmile: Do you really believe that there are no pointers given to us in Scripture to discern who is regenerate and who is not?

Also, if you are referring to Matt 28:19, you have inserted the word *by* yourself. It is not there. You ought not to do that.

The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by disciple.

Brother, why do you continuously misrepresent my position? I am not waiting for the child´s permission. I am waiting for grace to manifest itself, because we are to apply baptism as best we can to believers. It has nothing to do with permission.

I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.

Grace brother,

I appreciate all your time, Chris. I will continue to consider the arguments.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by ChritopherPaul
My ultimate point is we, in our flesh, cannot ultimately determine who is "œclothed in the Son by grace through faith alone." Yet you will allow a false confession baptize, but not a child who simply cannot speak regardless if the parents make a confession or not.

1) No one is denying that we can´t know for certain who has been regenerated. On this we agree.

2) It is *because* we do not know that we baptize on a *good* confession, a confession accompanied by marks of grace in the person´s life.

3) The reason why baptism is withheld from a baby is because it may not be regenerate. Until the infant shows marks of grace *according to the standards given in Scripture*, it must be considered as being in Adam.

Marcos, do you see any problem with teaching all that Jesus commands to a child who may not be regenerate?

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by ChritopherPaul
From my perspective, the Church makes disciples by baptizing and teaching. If someone wishes to be a disciple then I will exhort him to be baptized into the Church so that he can begin learning from her.

Here is the problem: Some dude says he wants to be a disciple and you baptize him, no questions asked, call him a Christian and a follower of Christ. Why? Because *you* don´t know if he´s elect or not. Not even Baptists are this bad :bigsmile: Do you really believe that there are no pointers given to us in Scripture to discern who is regenerate and who is not?

Perhaps we are talking past each other until we break out the fundamental arguments for and against infant baptism (which we need not beat a dead horse, but rather refer to the many other threads on the matter).

With that said, I am coming into this with the presupposition that baptism is a sign that one is now part of the church to be discipled by her just as circumcision was in the OT.

Those, in the NT who were deemed unregenerate and handed over to satan were baptized already. The critical emphasize for a confident sign that the person is truly among the elect is not modeled for us in the apostolic texts.

Originally posted by PetersAlso, if you are referring to Matt 28:19, you have inserted the word *by* yourself. It is not there. You ought not to do that.

So you disagree that making disciples involves baptizing and teaching? The Church is to make disciples, baptizing and teaching them. I also added the "œChurch". Perhaps we should not baptize and teach at all since the 11 Jesus was addressing are no longer with us?

Take your child and make a disciple out of him. How do you do this? Do you teach? Do you baptize?

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by ChritopherPaul
The parents, in obedience to God, will raise their children in the church and will teach their children all that Jesus commanded, NOT first waiting for the child´s permission, but directed by disciple.

Brother, why do you continuously misrepresent my position? I am not waiting for the child´s permission. I am waiting for grace to manifest itself, because we are to apply baptism as best we can to believers. It has nothing to do with permission.

I am sorry you feel I am misrepresenting you. My motive is to bring to light what I feel you are actually waiting for before you baptize. From my perspective, you are giving authority to the child by not baptizing him until he professes faith rather than baptizing him due to the profession of his parents who are commanded to teach him all that Jesus commanded and treat him as a disciple. I will also baptize him along with teaching, but for reasons we are discussing you will do the one (teach), but not the other (baptize).

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by ChritopherPaul
I am not sure there is any more we can say without rehashing all the same old baptism arguments.

Grace brother,

I appreciate all your time, Chris. I will continue to consider the arguments.

As do I appreciate your time. I believe to be productive we will have to tackle our presuppositions rather than restating what we require for discipleship.

I was raised Arminian, dispensationalist, credo baptist. I remember being convinced on credo-only baptisms because I tied baptism to justification. Once I untied the two, I was able to grasp the paedo argument. Perhaps this is where we must go next. You need to convince me to tie them back together and I would have to convince to you to separate them apart.

Cheers Marcos!