Necessary Inference aka, Good and Necessary Consequence.

Status
Not open for further replies.

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Where does the Bible say only the elect can be baptized? That only the elect are part of the visible Church? etc.

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Joseph,
No, dear brother, nothing you say will upset me. Let the sparks fly! ;)

I only have time to address two of your points. The others will have to wait for a couple of days as I shall be busy.

You wrote
Baloney!

There is not even one instance of "credo-baptism" in Scripture . . . unless you redefine "credo-baptism" so that the phrase loses its meaning.
Acts 8:36-37. 'Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the Eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip answered, "If you believe with all your heart you may."'

You also wrote:-
I still don't think I have heard you answer the question, "Why do you let women partake of the Lord's Supper?"

Well, why do you? There is not one explicit example in Scripture of it being done.
There seems to be a desperate concern about this among Presbyterians ;) If it really worries you, don't do it. :bigsmile:

However, the matter is perfectly clear from the Scriptures. In Acts 2, Peter quotes from Joel, who is very specific that both men and women would receive the Spirit. We are then told that, 'All who believed were together.......breaking bread from house to house' (vs 44, 46 ). Put the two Scriptures together and it is clear that 'Believers' must incorporate both men and women.

Likewise, it is clear from 1Cor 11:1-16 that there were women in the church. Paul continues (v20 ), 'Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. Clearly the whole church had assembled to take Communion, but because they did it wrongly, it was as if they didn't do it at all. It is therefore clear that women did take the Lord's Supper.

However, if your conscience troubles you on the matter, I should refer it to your presbytery.

BTW, in v28, the word translated 'man' is 'anthropos' which can, and often does, mean men and women together.


Hello Gabriel,

You wrote:-
No response to me? Okay.
I'm sorry, brother. I get a little bewildered with all the broadsides coming at me from different directions, and I missed yours! However, if you look at my long post to Scott, I think you'll find that I do answer your question, (though possibly not to your satisfaction ;)).

Grace and peace to all,
Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Where does the Bible say only the elect can be baptized?
Nowhere. You can baptize anyone, and a lot of Pastors do :mad:. Whether you should is another matter.

That only the elect are part of the visible Church? etc.
A whole pile of places, but Heb 8:10-12 will have to do for the moment, because it's past my bed-time.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, Heb 8:10-12 doesn't do.

In a reply I just made to a similar minded person as you...

Two things must be considered before exegeting this portion of Scripture.

1) The author of Hebrews is writing in the context of contrast and comparison. He is comparing and showing the continuity between the promise of ages past (the promise being the gospel, as preached to Abraham and by which all men are saved). He is contrasting the imperfection and impermenance of the Levitical order to the perfection, permenance and eternal/heavenly nature of the New Covenant.

2) The contrast is *not* between the way of salvation in the Old Testament and the way of salvation in the New Testament, it is between the Levitical order and priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. Read Hebrews 7 - 10 very carefully and this is most clear. The author is defending the perfection of Christ's work as Mediator, warning us to not desire going back to the ceremonial laws of the Levitical order and priesthood. Why? Because they were types and shadows of what was to come - and what HAS come - namely, Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice once-for-all.

Furthermore, it is important to understand the history of Israel as God's people. First, God gave them the promise through Abraham (the gospel, according to Paul, cg. Gal 3:8), by which all men are saved through faith and justified before God, according to Christ's righteousness. This is how ALL men have been saved since the beginning of time. There is no other path to salvation, and this promise has merely increased in glory, understanding, and clarity since Abraham, being consummated in Christ. Secondly, God gave them the Law through Moses. The Law was given for a few different reasons:

1) If they obeyed God's Law, He would bless their nation, temporally speaking.

2) The Law, in all of its specifications, pointed to and typified the Messiah to come; that is, Jesus Christ and His perfect life of obedience and sacrifice, which would abolish this Law.

3) The Levitical order and Law was MEANT to pass away. It was never meant to be permanent.

4) The Jews mistakenly became idolatrous with the Law. They began to think that they could earn righteousness through it, and misunderstood Moses when he said that one must keep ALL of the Law to be righteous. Moses was not giving them an option for salvation, he was showing them the impossibility of righteousness through the Law, without faith. Unless we are saved by the promise through faith, we are under the Law and its curse, which leads to knowledge of sin and death, spiritually and physically.

When the author of Hebrews begins his contrast between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Christ, he is not contrasting a way to salvation, because the Levitical order COULD NOT BRING SALVATION. Period. He is showing the supremacy of Christ over all things and in His FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament. Christ did not come to start a new religion, He came to fulfill an old one.

Furthermore, Baptists err in a significant way when they assume that Hebrews is arguing that salvation came through the Levitical order, and that the New Covenant is a better form of salvation. In order for one to be "saved" through the Law, one must be perfect. This is impossible. If God gave the Law as a means of salvation, then He gave them not only an impossible covenant to keep, but also a promise He never intended to follow through on. God would be a liar. The Law was never, ever, EVER meant to be considered as a way of salvation for men. The Messiah to come would save us from it, and He alone.

Okay then, now lets look at the text you quoted as being unique and new to the New Covenant age.


HEBREWS 8:10b:
"I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,"

In the New Covenant, God promises to put His laws into our minds, and write them on our hearts. This is better than the Levitical order in several ways, and He argues against those who would be tempted to follow the Law any longer, rather than take hold of the promise by which their Fathers were saved. For Israel, the Law was written on tablets of stone (2 Cor 3). This is not good enough, because simply knowing God's Law does not make anyone follow it, nor does it inspire obedience in anyone. Why? Because we are sinners with hearts of stone. God must first regenerate our heart and give us a heart of flesh that is soft and capable of receiving God's law with joy (Ezek 36). We can only follow what God commands when He regenerates our heart and gives us the means by which to follow it. However, none of this is new in the New Covenant. Believers in the Old Testament delighted in God's Law in their hearts and sought to obey His precepts. This would not be possible unless they were regenerate and God's Law was written on their hearts. We read of this plainly throughout the Old Testament. In fact, the emphasis throughout the Old Testament is often on obeying God's Law with all your heart (Deut 30:10; 32:46; Josh 22:5; 2 Kings 10:31; 23:25; 2 Chron 31:21; Ezra 7:10; Psalm 119:34). If this were not enough proof, David teaches us that the law was IN HIS HEART and WITHIN HIS HEART on many occasions (Psalm 37:31; 40:8; 119:70). This would not be possible unless David was regenerate and saved according to the same promise as we are - it definitely didn't come from the Law of Moses, which cannot save, but only condemns. The author of Hebrews is not arguing that "before, the law was not on our hearts and in the New Covenant, it is." No, he is simply arguing that the reality of this blessing is much greater in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was glorious, but the New is much MORE glorious (2 Cor 3:7-11). Consider Isaiah 51:7, which says:

Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings. (Isaiah 51:7)


Finally, Paul even teaches us that unbelievers and reprobates have the work of God's law writtein in their hearts in some capacity, leaving them without excuse before God on judgment day for their rebellion and sinfulness:

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:15)


HEBREWS 8:10c:
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

This is covenantal language we find throughout Scripture, of God declaring that He has initiated the covenant, and the people are obligated to respond with faith and obedience (Exo 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 30:22; Ezek 36:28). God commands the same thing in every covenant agreement between Himself and His people. When circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant of promise, God commanded Abraham and his offspring to "keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations" (Gen 17:9).

So it is clear that when we enter covenant with God, not all is guaranteed from the outset. We are given a promise, stipulations and obligations to obedience, and upon fulfillment of the conditions for the covenantal arrangement, we receive the blessings and promises related to that covenantal arrangement in full. This is simply how covenants work, and how the suzerainty treaties of the contemporary Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms worked, which God's covenants between Himself and His people were patterned after, clearly. There is a supreme King who imposes the covenant on His people, outlines the obligations for obedience, and provides a reward for obedience to His demands. We do not have to agree with being brought into the covenant, nor do we have any say in who is or isn't part of the covenantal arrangement, God simply imposes it upon whom He wills.


HEBREWS 8:11:
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, "˜Know the Lord,´
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

The prophet Joel speaks of the New Covenant age when he states,

Joel 2:28 "œAnd it shall come to pass afterward,?that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;?your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,?your old men shall dream dreams,?and your young men shall see visions.?29 Even on the male and female servants?in those days I will pour out my Spirit.

Under the New Covenant, there is no class distinction. There is not the hierarchy of God's people as in the Levitical order. All people are equally capable of repenting and believing. All people, young and old, male and female, slave and free, can be saved by the gospel of Jesus Christ, since the dividing wall (the Levitical order, cg. Eph 2) has been torn down by Christ's sacrifice once-for-all. Little chlidren, infants, toddlers, teenagers, old men, young women, and adults will all be capable of saving faith and the knowledge of the Lord. Kings, slaves, rulers, authorities, doctors, teachers, parents, children, and all types of people will be capable of saving faith and the knowledge of the Lord. Salvation is no longer for Jews and their proselytes, but is now for all people of all nations, and the gospel will be successful in all the world.

In this verse is also a prophetic pronouncement as to the success and spread of the gospel. The gospel will not be overthrown or stopped by anything, as God has promised substantial and complete success in its spread and influence. The knowledge of the Lord will spread like wildfire, beacuse God's Spirit will be causing His people to adhere to His law, and no class or type of person will be excluded from the gospel promise. Isaiah writes of this when he says,

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:9)

That is not a description of limited success, but world domination. The New Covenant, with its better sacrifice and better promises, the gift of the Holy Spirit in greater capacity, with no dividing wall of ordinances and sacrifices according to the Levitical order, will spread throughout the earth and be known in all the nations. Literally, all people and types of people will know about the Lord and His salvation, from the least of us to the greatest of us. This verse speaks in no way of the covenant community of God. Such an assertion is simply indefensible. It is speaking of the success of the gospel throughout the nations and among all types of people, not a completely regenerate covenant people. The New Testament, in drawing parallels (not contrasts) with Old Testament Israel clearly teaches that we are not a new people of God, but that the Gentiles have simply been grafted into Israel through Christ.


HEBREWS 8:12:
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more."

Surely you don't think this is something new in the New Covenant, do you? To claim so would be to claim that no one was saved prior to the first century A.D. Thankfully, Scripture is clear that God has been merciful to the iniquities of His people since the beginning (Numbers 15:28; Psalm 25:18; 32:5; 51:1,9; 65:3; 103:10,12; 130:7-8; Proverbs 28:13). Most explicitly, consider Psalm 103, which states,

2 Bless the Lord, O my soul,?and forget not all his benefits,?3 who forgives all your iniquity,?who heals all your diseases,
10 He does not deal with us according to our sins,?nor repay us according to our iniquities.

And again, Psalm 130 which states,

7 O Israel, hope in the Lord!?For with the Lord there is steadfast love,?and with him is plentiful redemption.?8 And he will redeem Israel?from all his iniquities.

Finally, the reference to "I will remember their sins no more" is not a salvific reference, but in line with the context of Hebrews at this point, which is contrasting the fallibility of the Levitical order compared to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, the author of Hebrews writes,

10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year.
Now that Christ has become our perfect sacrifice and died once-for-all for our sins, there is no more reminder of sins every year. Therefore, Jeremiah was able to say that God would "remember their sins no more." Context is key in interpreting Scripture properly.


HEBREWS 8:13:
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

What does God make obsolete? Well, what's the context of Hebrews 7-10? The Levitical order and priesthood compared to Christ's priesthood. The Levitical order has been made obsolete, beacuse Christ is now our High Priest and perfect, once-for-all sacrifice. There is no need for the Levitical order to be considered any longer, and this message was brought to Christians at the "end of the ages"; that is, the end of the Old Covenant age and the beginning of the New Covenant age. The New Testament speaks very clearly about this eschatalogical event and its significance. The Levitical order, which was "becoming obsolete and growing old" finallly did "vanish away" with the abomination of desolation and complete and utter destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Titus' Roman army in A.D. 70 - something that Jesus Christ predicted and warned His true followers about. This was God's final judgment against apostate Judaism, that had rejected the promise, killed the Messiah, and clung to the Levitical Law for salvation. However, as we can clearly see and read in Scripture, the Levitical order was not capable of taking away sins, nor was it a means of salvation. It simply pointed to the Christ who was to come and has now come and died once-for-all for His people. A perfect sacrifice for the better covenant and fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. Hebrews is not describing a new salvation, but the fulfillment of the promise - the same promise by which all believers in the Old Testament have been saved in Jesus Christ's blood.

If there was any confusion as to what is "passing away" in this verse, just keep reading, as chapter divisions in Scripture are not inspired. Hebrews 9:1 says,

Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.

The Levitical order, its ceremonial laws and regulations, have grown old and passed away with finality. Christ has come, died, and been raised again, freeing us from the tutor that pointed to Him and His perfection.

To impose on Hebrews 8 a presupposition that the New Covenant church is radically different in composition and form from the Old Testament church is repugnant and completely unwarranted by the rest of Holy Scripture.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello again, Scott,
Thank you for taking the time and trouble in your reply to me.
I'm afraid, however, that your list of Westminster divines does not move me. Indeed, I have to say that I find it a little worrying. It seems to me to deny Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.
It doesn't deny reforming. I know you are not denying that God specifically works through His servants? In fact, these men penned one of the most valuable documents to Christs church only secondary to the bible. The reason I have listed these men is to show that your premise is faulty; unless of course you are willing to say as well that these men are relying upon human reasoning and not divine revelation as they hold to the same theology as myself.

This is what you previously said in regards to NI:

I believe that it is vital to stay very close to the Bible. It is possible to stray from it with a whole series of inferences, which may appear to be good and necessary, but which are ultimately based upon human reasoning, not Divine revelation.
Are you ready to say that the devines whom penned the WCf used human reasoning in regards to ch 28?

That many of these men were shining lights in their day, who can deny? But to say that they had grasped all truth for ever is to make the Bible a dead thing rather than the living and active word of God.
It seems that men whom are much more astute than myself have subscribed to the WCF for centuries. Holding fast to paedobaptism does not make the word of God dead. However, the WCF is a valuable document that Christ has seen to bless his people with. It has stood the test of time and needs no revamping.


In my discussions with Roman Catholics, I find that they are also pointing to their great men of the past, and asking the same questions that you ask.
This is a red herring..............



Why is your list of names better than theirs?
Do I need to answer this?


Or I could compile a list of famous Baptists, starting with Spilsbury and Tombes, travelling through Gill, the Haldanes, Dagg and Spurgeon, and ending with today's men like Richard Barcellos, the Renihans and James White, to name only those from your country.
And you would end up with the same premise I am holding you to; necessary inference is utilized by all believers. You want to hold to the literal here in Acts 2, buit in another breath, you have no conflict with utilizing the premise in regards to the trinity, the NT tithe and woman taking the supper. All I am saying is this Martin, remain consistant. Either accept the idea or reject it. You cannot have it both ways.



But what would such a list prove? We end in a school-boy squabble- "My list is better/older/longer than your list!"
Not true; even though my list is better, bigger and longer!:bigsmile:


Listen to another Puritan, the Pastor to the Pilgrim Fathers:-

'I bewail the stae and condition of the reformed churches, who have come to a full-stop in religion, and will go no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn beyond what Luther saw; the Calvinists, the stick where Luther left them. This is a misery much to be lamented; for though they were shining lights in their times, yet God did not reveal His whole will unto them, and if they were alive today, they would be as ready to and willing to embrase further light as that they had received.'
John Robinson
Are you saying that there is something NEW under the sun?



Scott previously wrote:
This passage does not exclude children. Trying to hold to the idea that the Jews watching would have naturally (or by devine revelation) thought that their children were all of a sudden excluded from an equation such as this, when in the past, families were always dealt with as a unit is reaching.
Martin replies:

This is not inference; with respect, it is invention. You are imposing your prejudices upon the text.
No. I am using hermenuetics to come to my conclusion; the whole councel of God. God is immutable; he does not change. He has always been a God of families.

Martin adds:

All these people had already been circumcised. Why on earth should they equate baptism with circumcision, when Peter says not a word about it? Look at what Peter says, and then look at what the crowd does, and you will see a wonderful correspondence between them, one that does not include infant baptism.
Baptism is not necessarily a new testament concept Martin. Johns baptism as well as what Peter was asking was not foreign to them. When the scriptures state (In regards to John the baptist) that all were coming out to the Jordan, do you believe it just meant adults? When it came to things of this nature, federal heads braought their whole families as this is how God worked in days past.

Scott previously wrote:

Here we go again; God regenerates infants. Discipleship does not necessarily imply conversion. Please substantiate this claim that God cannot regenerate the infant.

Martin responded:
God can do anything He wants. I say that it is not His normal practice.
This is an assertion; you cannot prove this. We have numerous cases in scripture where God worked either in the womb or at birth.

Martin adds:

I cited Neh 8:2 in the other thread. 'So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding...'. Men, women and perhaps older children listened to the reading of the word, but younger infants, imbeciles and the deaf were excused because they could not understand.
You are reading into the text and limiting God here. They didn't just farm out the weak. How does God save the imbecile? he goes to that imbecile and reveals His word to that person in a way that the imbecile will understand. The same applies to the infant or deaf.

Martin continues:
Or how about Exodus 13:14? 'So it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, "What is this?" that you shall tell him.....'. It is pre-supposed that the son does not understand; he needs to have the 'Gospel' explained to him.
OK.


Martin adds:
His father is to wait until he starts to ask questions, then he is old enough to understand.
I disagree. I have been preaching to my daughter from the womb. God can regenerate her even in the womb! The command to rear our chuildren in the way they should go does not begin at when they 'start to ask questions'.

Scott previously says:
Based upon the general idea of your premise, again I table the challenge to deal with the rest of items that are NI; it cannot be both ways; we cannot pick and choose those things which support our system alone. Having said this, are you ready as well to toss things like the trinity, the NYT tithe or woman taking the Lords supper? Either we are consistant or we are not. I know earlier you mentioned that you would deal with this later, however, it is my opinion that you cannot deal with the passage in Acts unless you deal with NI now. As mentioned, NI is not railing against sola scriptura, it IS SS.
Martin adds:
I have said elsewhere that I do not reject 'Good and Necessary Consequence.' Indeed, that is what I have tried to supply here. But I would never use it where there is no Biblical support.
The paedobaptist is not guilty of this; the problem is, no disrespect meant, you don't understand covenant theology. You are bound by your baptistic presuppositions; as I once was. The rationale you use to remove any NI from this text is obvious. However, if you will read all of Joel, you will see that Peter is quoting Joel and based upon that, the emphasis to the message is altrered from how you have interpreted it.

In regards to your post to Joseph on Acts 8:

Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 But when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. And the eunuch did not see him any more; for he went his way rejoicing.

Looks like both of them were baptised; both went down and both came up out of the water..........:banana:

The above passage does support baptism. Whether or not the eunich is a true believer is between God and him alone. At this point we can call him a disciple. Based upon the passage, mode may be concluded; sprinkling, but thats another topic!




[Edited on 6-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I appreciate the sentiments here. As I read through this post, it sounds a bit aggressive. It is not meant to be, and I hope no one will take offense. 'As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens his brother.' I suppose that a few sparks must fly in order for this to happen, but we may still remain brothers.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
You may notice, Martin, that I was no more aggressive than you were. I asserted certain things just as you did other things. If you are certain because of the grace given you, then you also have the grace to be humble about that certainty. I can respect those who differ and are mutuallly respectful in return, because it shows a more important thing, I believe; which is the humility of faith. Only in this way can we learn from each other, and perhaps be taught to ask ourselves the hard question of faith: "What is it that my stubborn heart refuses to acknowledge?"

For God has indeed gifted some people who are Credo Baptist and Paedo Baptist. In other words, though one of them has to be wrong, or perhaps both are wrong, there is no doubt that the Spirit is working in them all the same. We ought not be too attached to our own points of view that we cannot be corrected, or that we simply blind ourselves to what the Spirit has revealed to those we deem as doctrinally wrong. That does not mean that we are any less certain ourselves; but it does mean that we are humble enough to know that the truth is God's to dispense as He sees fit, and not to rail against His children.

This is a discussion Board, where we get to put our heads against each other. And this particular discussion is about a fundamental distinction between the people of God. I think that once you hear the objections Scott raises, namely, that the Credo views imposes upon the text, while the paedo view does not, then you will see that this is a discussion of good and necessary inference from Biblical givens. I am quite certain of it.

But at the same time, I know that it may yet be that there is something that I don't understand as well. I believe that God has allowed us both to be His children, and to receive His gifts of grace, not just because the one is right and the other is wrong, but because we both need to rely on the objectivity of His Word more than we do, and to learn to submmit to it. "Subdue my heart to teachableness" (Calvin)
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Baloney!

There is not even one instance of "credo-baptism" in Scripture . . . unless you redefine "credo-baptism" so that the phrase loses its meaning.
Acts 8:36-37. 'Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the Eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip answered, "If you believe with all your heart you may."'
Sorry, that is not an instance of credobaptism. You obviously failed to pay attention to everything I said in my last post. Since both paedobaptists and credobaptists believe that adults should profess faith before baptism, Acts 8:36-37 does not support either view over the other. There is nothing anti-paedobaptistic about Acts 8.

So my previous challenge still stands. Show me even ONE credobaptistic verse in the Bible. It doesn't exist! Nowhere does Scripture say that infants are no longer part of God's covenant people, or that a profession of faith is required for ALL covenant members before baptism. Paedobaptists love Acts 8 just as much as you do. There is no credobaptistic precept in there.


Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I still don't think I have heard you answer the question, "Why do you let women partake of the Lord's Supper?"

Well, why do you? There is not one explicit example in Scripture of it being done.
. . . the matter is perfectly clear from the Scriptures. In Acts 2, Peter quotes from Joel, who is very specific that both men and women would receive the Spirit.
Agreed. So, you need to likewise remember that Joel is also very specific that the spirit would be poured out on the infant children as well!

"Sanctify the congregation . . . even nursing infants." (Joel 2:16)
"I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters . . ." (Joel 2:28)

Or are you suggesting that the "nursing infants" were somehow not considered to be part of the "congregation", and that the infant "sons" and "daughters" aren't included as part of "all flesh"?
Reductio ad absurdum.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Likewise, it is clear from 1Cor 11:1-16 that there were women in the church. Paul continues (v20 ), 'Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. Clearly the whole church had assembled to take Communion, but because they did it wrongly, it was as if they didn't do it at all. It is therefore clear that women did take the Lord's Supper.
Likewise, it is clear from Acts 2:17 and 2:39 that the children of the believers were included. It is therefore clear that they were baptized, just like their parents.


Martin, I agree with everything you said about women partaking of the Lord's Supper. My point is that the paedobaptist argument rests upon the SAME types of necessary inferences from Scripture.

Scripture never explicitly says, "give women the Lord's Supper", any more than it explicitly says, "baptize your babies". (Scripture never explicitly says the word "Trinity", either.) Nevertheless, these doctrines are very clear from Scripture, once we note the contexts of the passages in question, and derive logically necessary inferences (NI) from them. If you deny the right to use NI in the paedobaptist argument, then you yourself are barred from using NI to admit women to the Lord's Supper, or to talk about the Trinity.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Joseph:

That is a good example of good and necessary inference used properly, I think.
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Gabriel,
Thank you for your interesting study. May I suggest that you post it on the exegetical forum? I'd like to discuss it, but it's not going to happen for a few days; I have two sermons to prepare.

I will try to reply to Joseph tomorrow.

Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Sorry, that is not an instance of credobaptism.
Well, I'm sorry, but it self-evidently is.

You obviously failed to pay attention to everything I said in my last post. Since both paedobaptists and credobaptists believe that adults should profess faith before baptism, Acts 8:36-37 does not support either view over the other. There is nothing anti-paedobaptistic about Acts 8.
You didn't ask for an anti-paedobaptistic text, you asked for a credo-baptistic one :p The fact is that there is simply no mention whatsoever of infant baptism in the NT. It is simply not in the view of the divinely-inspired writers. The text that I quoted, which is consonant with several other texts tells us that faith in Jesus as the Christ is a pre-requisite for Christian baptism. Other texts tell us that this is to be accompanied by repentance.

So my previous challenge still stands. Show me even ONE credobaptistic verse in the Bible. It doesn't exist! Nowhere does Scripture say that infants are no longer part of God's covenant people, or that a profession of faith is required for ALL covenant members before baptism. Paedobaptists love Acts 8 just as much as you do. There is no credobaptistic precept in there.
Infants per se never were in the Everlasting Covenant, as the writers of the WCF understood. As it is written in the Larger Catechism, Q.31:-

Q. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all of the elect as His seed.
I'm sorry to say that your discussion of Acts 2 is a horrible twisting of Scripture to fit your pre-conceived ideas.

So, you need to likewise remember that Joel is also very specific that the spirit would be poured out on the infant children as well!
Oh yes? Where do you get that from? You quote selectively from Joel 2:16. Let's have the full verse.

"Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the chilren and nursing babes; let the Bridegroom go out from his chamber and the bride from her dressing room." (Joel 2:16)
Joel 2:16 is not quoted by Peter. It is not part of the great New Testament promise that begins at v28. It is true that in times of great national crisis (2Chron 20:13 is the other instance that comes to mind), the whole nation of Isael would come before the Lord in solemn assembly. The purpose of this was to plead the covenants of promise before the Lord. If Israel were destroyed, how would the promised Seed of Abraham come and the Son of David sit upon His throne? However, when it comes to the preaching of the word, the congregation is, Those who could hear with understanding.' (Neh 8:2 ).

You then continue (again, I give the full text of the verse):-

"And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams . . ." (Joel 2:28)

Or are you suggesting that the "nursing infants" were somehow not considered to be part of the "congregation", and that the infant "sons" and "daughters" aren't included as part of "all flesh"?
Reductio ad absurdum.
First of all, where are the 'infant sons and daughters' in 2:28. You have put two different contexts together to try to prove your point.

Secondly, when is 'Afterwards'? Peter tells us in Acts 2:16: 'This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.' It is a prophecy of the Day of Pentecost in particular and the NT era in general (cf. v17 ). Do we hear of any infants prophesying on the Day of Pentecost? I don't think so.

Thirdly, what is 'all flesh'? You seem to be suggesting that it is all people, without discrimination. Are you a Universalist? Surely not! In the context of Joel 2:32 and Acts 2:21 & 39 ('to all who are afar off'), it refers to the Gentiles. Under the Old Covenant, salvation was almost entirely confined to a remnant of the Isaraelites. In the NT era, the Gospel goes out to all nations, all flesh.

You continued:-

Likewise, it is clear from Acts 2:17 and 2:39 that the children of the believers were included. It is therefore clear that they were baptized, just like their parents.
Acts 2:17, quoting Joel, speaks of the descendants of those to whom Joel prophesied. It was fulfilled in Acts 2:4.

Acts 2:39 speaks of the New Covenant promise. If those listening to Peter, their children (descendants) and the Gentiles will repent, trust in Christ and be baptized, their sins will be forgiven and they will receive the Holy Spirit. This is what Peter's hearers understood, and it is what they did (v41ff). There is simply no mention whatsoever of infants being baptized. How easy it would have been for Luke to have written, 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, along with their children' or 'And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved and their infants.' But he doesn't! And it's not for you to write it in for him :judge:

Martin, I agree with everything you said about women partaking of the Lord's Supper. My point is that the paedobaptist argument rests upon the SAME types of necessary inferences from Scripture.

Scripture never explicitly says, "give women the Lord's Supper", any more than it explicitly says, "baptize your babies". (Scripture never explicitly says the word "Trinity", either.) Nevertheless, these doctrines are very clear from Scripture, once we note the contexts of the passages in question, and derive logically necessary inferences (NI) from them. If you deny the right to use NI in the paedobaptist argument, then you yourself are barred from using NI to admit women to the Lord's Supper, or to talk about the Trinity.
I do not deny 'Good and necessary Consequence', but there is a huge difference between the baptism question and women partaking of the Lord's Supper. In the first, time and time again, baptism is given to professing believers; it is wrong to try and go against these clear examples of NT baptism by pulling verses out of context as you have done. With regard to the Lord's Supper, it is clear that the whole church came together to do it, and that women were part of the church. It's as simple as that. Good, and necessary :up: But if we had three or four examples in the Bible of only men partaking, then it would be a very different matter. We would have to consider the question much more critically.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Infants per se never were in the Everlasting Covenant, as the writers of the WCF understood. As it is written in the Larger Catechism, Q.31:-

Quote:

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

And now you're saying the writers of the WCF didn't believe infants were part of the covenant? Okay, enough lies and misrepresentation, buddy.

The fact that the "covenant of grace is made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all of the elect as His seed" is not a new thing. This was true before the foundation of the world, including during the Old Testament, when children were explicitly part of the covenant. Nothing changed ...

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hey, I thought this was going to blow up into a debate on Exclusive Psalmody!

Some day I'm going to show how non-EP is a necessary inference. :chained:
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Some day I'm going to show how non-EP is a necessary inference.
Not likely. :sing: Augustine got it, why can't you ;)

In the meantime, I'd like to see Thomas Manton vs. Martin Marprelate over the slander he has brought against the Westminsterians. :lol:
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As it turns out I am reading Augustine right now. I think we could go through his City of God chapter by chapter and get a lot out of discussion on it.

Lately I finished reading his work On Christian Doctrine, which is also quite an eye-opener. So I am not unfamiliar with Augustine. As a matter of fact, I would be using a number of his arguments.

What got me going on City of God again was another discussion about the attributes of God. I couldn't quite remember how he argued the knowledge of God being different than the knowledge of man. But I'm relearning a lot of other things as well. He was an incredible man.

I just don't want to fall into the trap of being unconvinced by Scripture, but being convinced by Augustine. However, Augustine (or you) can convince me from Scripture; that's quite acceptable. As long as it is good and necessary consequence. Of course, it will have to deal with a host of things, such as apparent contradictions it will place upon other teachings of Scripture concerning worship and praise. But that is for some other day, not now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top