Paedobaptism view of Credobaptist Children

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by crhoades
Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,
Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.

*Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

So for the sake of thoroughness...

Here comes not the reductio ad hitlerum but rather the reductio ad Spurgeonum.

If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.

Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,

Scott obviously does not want to answer, because the clear implication of his position is "yes," whilst he desires to say some kind of heavily qualified "no."

I expect that we must hold our breath after a man makes a profession of faith in Christ, to see if he will "really persevere" through the work of baptizing his children. If not, he was not really elect, because "teh elect persevere."

Clearly contrary to Galatians 5:1-6

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love[/b]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Chris,
If you have read the thread then you would not be asking the question; I've already clarified that numerous times.

 

[beej6]

Speaking into the air (and after finally catching up with most of this thread):

I am thinking of a mythical Reformed Baptist church called the Almost There Baptist Church, whose congregation consists solely of parents and their seventeen year old children. All of the children will celebrate their 18th birthday tomorrow, September 3rd, 2006, and with a profession of faith, will all be baptized during the worship service. (The name of the church will also be changed to the Always Ready Baptist Church. :bigsmile

From the gist of this thread, then, Scott would say that today, all the parents are covenant breakers. I would submit that after Sunday's worship service, all the parents are no longer covenant breakers. True?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.

Reminds me of a dance not too long ago around the question, "Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?"

I don't know why it was so tough getting an answer to that question???

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by crhoades
Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,
Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.

*Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

So for the sake of thoroughness...

Here comes not the reductio ad hitlerum but rather the reductio ad Spurgeonum.

If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.

Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,

Scott obviously does not want to answer, because the clear implication of his position is "yes," whilst he desires to say some kind of heavily qualified "no."

I expect that we must hold our breath after a man makes a profession of faith in Christ, to see if he will "really persevere" through the work of baptizing his children. If not, he was not really elect, because "teh elect persevere."

Clearly contrary to Galatians 5:1-6

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love[/b]

Fred,
I would appreciate it if you would quit bearing false witness against me that I am not guilty of; I never said that antipaedobaptists are unsaved; a number of times. I have been quite clear in whom I see as in error.

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

One cannot be cut off from the internal/invisible covenant and be saved. You have stated several times that those who do not baptize their children are cut off from both the visible and invisible covenant.

So if I am bearing false witness help me by answering this directly:

Are credobaptists cut off from the invisible covenant?

 

[crhoades]

Antipaedo's with children who don't baptize them, correct?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Scott,

Would you be able to make a single post in which you bring together and summarize your thoughts on this subject? This thread is getting rather long and difficult to follow; and after making numerous posts last night trying to get a direct answer from you about the regeneracy of Anti-paedobaptists, I think that it would simply be more helpful to all of us (yourself included) if you would summarize all of your thoughts in a single post.

Please note, I am not asking you to quote Gen. 17, or Exod. 12, or Calvin, or Rutherford, or ask whether God will ever again destroy the world by water. I am asking that you put down your thoughts on this subject, as complete as they are at this moment, in a regular, systematic manner.

Thank you.

 

[Arch2k]

I have been reading through this thread and will try to offer a couple of observations.

1) I think that Scott's position has to do more with the CoG (as distinguished from the CoR), the visible church, and the divided sense than the it does judging if someone is elect, justified, or even a part of the invisible church.

Scott, this is what I am understanding from your position, although at times you seem to contradict it.

2) Also, excommunication or church censures also deal very closely with what is being discussed since it assumes that a person was at one point a part of the visible church, visible covenant and then cut off. Is it possible for a person to be justified and not a part of the visible church? Not the norm, but yes.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church
II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24

4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
6. Acts 2:47

So even if someone is cut-off from the covenant, it is not as though this person might not be justified in the sight of God and a true believer, but with the lack of repentance they are not to be considered as having the benefits of Christ's work (although objectively in the eyes of Christ they may be).

3) The unforgivable sin. Is it failure to recognize the need to apply the sign of the covenant to your seed? There are a multitude of sins that Christians committ everyday without repentance that are covered by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, the sign of the covenant is a more grievious sin than most "everyday" sins, but nonetheless, is it equated to that one sin which cannot be forgiven?

4) Church membership. As the WCF says, it is a grevious sin to neglect one's seed for the sign of baptism, and therefore I would not think it wise for the church to accept into memebership those who refuse such an ordinance. If one did, church disipline would have to be (or SHOULD be) performed on the party and eventually, without repentance, the party would be (should be) excommunicated.

5) Practicing homosexuals. Suppose for the sake of argument, that one professes the exact same doctrines as you do. If he professed the true reformed religion, would you allow him into church? Would you consider them justified? Is this the unforgivable sin? Is one required to be straight in order to be saved? Sola Fide or Sola Fide + Sola Straightness?

Note: This last point is made in all seriousness, and is not meant to be crude, course jesting or any other such thing. It is meant to equate what Presbyterians believe to be a gross sin, to what is universally held amongst Christians to be a gross sin.

These are just some thoughts and observations as this thread progresses. I understand more and more the position that Scott is expounding, but at the same time have very cautious reservations.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

One cannot be cut off from the internal/invisible covenant and be saved. You have stated several times that those who do not baptize their children are cut off from both the visible and invisible covenant.

So if I am bearing false witness help me by answering this directly:

Are credobaptists cut off from the invisible covenant?

I have only scripture to go by Fred. Only God knows His elect. A man who refuses to place the sign upon his child as God commands is cut off; he is excommunicated. As per the WCF, 'demerited'. If he remains in the excommunicated status, one has to believe that that person is either apostate or reprobate. Where else is there to go? So, specifically, all credobaptists are not guilty of this error.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I have been reading through this thread and will try to offer a couple of observations.

1) I think that Scott's position has to do more with the CoG (as distinguished from the CoR), the visible church, and the divided sense than the it does judging if someone is elect, justified, or even a part of the invisible church.

Scott, this is what I am understanding from your position, although at times you seem to contradict it.

2) Also, excommunication or church censures also deal very closely with what is being discussed since it assumes that a person was at one point a part of the visible church, visible covenant and then cut off. Is it possible for a person to be justified and not a part of the visible church? Not the norm, but yes.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church
II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24

4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
6. Acts 2:47

So even if someone is cut-off from the covenant, it is not as though this person might not be justified in the sight of God and a true believer, but with the lack of repentance they are not to be considered as having the benefits of Christ's work (although objectively in the eyes of Christ they may be).

3) The unforgivable sin. Is it failure to recognize the need to apply the sign of the covenant to your seed? There are a multitude of sins that Christians committ everyday without repentance that are covered by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, the sign of the covenant is a more grievious sin than most "everyday" sins, but nonetheless, is it equated to that one sin which cannot be forgiven?

4) Church membership. As the WCF says, it is a grevious sin to neglect one's seed for the sign of baptism, and therefore I would not think it wise for the church to accept into memebership those who refuse such an ordinance. If one did, church disipline would have to be (or SHOULD be) performed on the party and eventually, without repentance, the party would be (should be) excommunicated.

5) Practicing homosexuals. Suppose for the sake of argument, that one professes the exact same doctrines as you do. If he professed the true reformed religion, would you allow him into church? Would you consider them justified? Is this the unforgivable sin? Is one required to be straight in order to be saved? Sola Fide or Sola Fide + Sola Straightness?

Note: This last point is made in all seriousness, and is not meant to be crude, course jesting or any other such thing. It is meant to equate what Presbyterians believe to be a gross sin, to what is universally held amongst Christians to be a gross sin.

These are just some thoughts and observations as this thread progresses. I understand more and more the position that Scott is expounding, but at the same time have very cautious reservations.

Jeff,
Thank you for helping; Without having to put a lot of thought into what you've posted it is accurate if not close. The only thing I would add is something I mentioned much earlier in the thread; that being, there is a big difference between someone sinning and being in covenant w/ God and out of covenant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Stats:

Member of the Day is Scott Bushey with 49 posts

This is suprising?

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....
Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.

True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."

I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.

You agree??? So your whole argument about Genesis 17 just crumbled.

You said that baptists who do not baptize their children are cut off from the covenant community per Gen 17. Yet here you agree that this uncircumcised nation was not cut off from the covenant community for not being circumcised and for not circumcising their children. Doesn't that sound a bit inconsistant?

The wilderness episode may not be a good analogy for this debate. The covenant community was in transition.

Deuteronomy 8

" 1. All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah sware unto your fathers.
2. And thou shalt remember all the way which Jehovah thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or not.
3. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live. "

This was an extraordinary phase of redemptive history; God honoring His covenant with the patriarchs, compounded by this interim period after Sinai and before entrance into the promised land.

The question is thus raised: Are we in a similar trial period now?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by beej6
Speaking into the air (and after finally catching up with most of this thread):

I am thinking of a mythical Reformed Baptist church called the Almost There Baptist Church, whose congregation consists solely of parents and their seventeen year old children. All of the children will celebrate their 18th birthday tomorrow, September 3rd, 2006, and with a profession of faith, will all be baptized during the worship service. (The name of the church will also be changed to the Always Ready Baptist Church. :bigsmile

From the gist of this thread, then, Scott would say that today, all the parents are covenant breakers. I would submit that after Sunday's worship service, all the parents are no longer covenant breakers. True?

BJ,
Good question. I would submit that if the parents remained in a rebelious state, i.e they still reject Gods command to place the sign, even though the adult seed was now submitting to the ordinance, then they would still be breaking covenant ultimately. For instance, we earlier spoke of Joshua; if a family member, after crossing over the Jordan rejected still the command, that father was 'cut off'; he has broken Gods covenant, even if one of his grown chidren submitted to the ordinance. he is still in his rebellion.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Honestly, I can't believe what I'm hearing from elders all across the board. It demonstrates that many ought to get out of the pulpit and into the pew.

You guys should be smarter than that.

Fred, I can't believe you presumed to tell Scott he's saying "FV" stuff.

Listen, if I sin today, and I don't repent of that sin (whatever it is), I'm BREAKING COVENANT with God.

Are you all that obtuse to be saying that you don't get that?

No one here believes that one had to be baptized to be saved.

Baptism is covenantal, salvation is soteriological.

I'm TELLING you all, the biggest problem in this thread is a hermeneutic problem of understanding how to differentiate things in God's eternal counsel, and the practical application of that in TIME under the Covenant of Grace.

REALLY, its not about baptism, signs, circumcision, OT vs NT, etc.

Its about how you handle the DECREES OF GOD in salvation, with the OUTWORKING of those decrees in time PRACTICALLY among the visible church COVENANTALLY.

If you can't agree on your hermeneutics, this thread will go on forever.

Go argue about how one deals with that hermeneutical issue.

Let me give you a practical example:

Credo baptists are covenant breakers and on the road of apostasy, and may be apostate, if they do not repent.

Is this God's eternal decree, or the practical outworking of how the visible church works (i.e. what the Confession says about it being a "great sin")?

Let's say this EXACT same thing in a different way:

You sinned today and broke covenant with God, are on the road of apostasy and may be apostate if you do not repent.

Think through that.

Can those who continue in sin (forget the decrees of God that we don't know about) go to heaven?

If we can't deal practically with that problem and question, then elders have no VISIBLE basis for excommunication at any time. You could never excommunicate anyone! This "credo" covenant breaking question is not salvation oriented, its ECCLESIASTICALLY oriented (i.e. covenantal).

Now we are on a WHOLE other plain of theological conversation where this thread should have gone.

Instead, you're arguing in different ballparks altogether because you have missed the hermeneutical rule of how the compound and divided sense of Scripture works.

Without that key, you won't get anywhere (and haven't for 12 pages).

If this does not go somewhere good soon, I'll close it.


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Some quick observations from one who has been on both sides of the issue:

1. FIRST: It seems Scott is coming from a position that in Scripture ONLY one "œview" is truly scripturally driven.

2. This is contra some posts that tend to say some form of "œyour view versus our view" and then blather on. This a form of subtle relativism under the guise of "œkeeping the peace" and "œkeeping one false position viable". It´s always easier to say, "œYour way works for you and my way works for me", and go on carelessly. That´s not to be "œmean" but show some sobering light here.

3. As a principle it is crucial to really understand without saying which position in specific is truly biblical; that at the end of the day either children of believers are commanded by God to be baptized or not, and to not do so or to do so is a great sin. For there is no middle ground period. Else baptism becomes nothing from either position if there is middle ground. One might argue in the PC church of America today this is so, peace at the sacrifice of defending the faith, specifically defending the faith in baptism in this case.

4. I say that because often "œyour view Vs. my view" is given to excuse a false view and pretend a fellowship that really doesn´t exist. Because at the end of the day, the issue of baptism is NOT a non-essential but a battle for the very Gospel itself and to lay that down is perilous.

5. Scott here is getting falsely castigated for THAT and he has repeatedly alluded it this way: In principle he is saying there is not "œyour understanding or view" and "œmy understanding or view" but God´s.

6. SECOND: The specific issue seems to be a difference between throwing off Christ by not baptizing children (the covenant of grace) in a despising way versus ignorance in understanding of the Scriptures.

7. That is are they cut off only when they truly in full knowledge despise the covenant and the sign this way OR are they also cut off if they only do so due to centuries of ignorance allowed to propagate the devil´s devices leading generations of God´s people to this day some 500+ years post reformation into a position of not baptizing their children?

8. In short do they despise the covenant of Grace and the Gospel in this way or are they ignorant of it?

9. This leads us to: Certainly if one openly despises, then they´d be cut off.

10. But if it is pure ignorance due to the devil´s influence and the old flesh we all battle with, then are they cut off?

Number 10 is the question that should be sought to answer. I answer it this way. I don´t think they are cut off but the position is perilous. However, the answer lies in not confronting them with "œMy law and obedience is better than yours". Why? Anytime we fallen creatures proffer forth religion in a legal way unto merit we murder each other. The facts of history inside and outside of the church are without viable argument against this. The answer lies in showing them the Gospel IN baptism, not "œmy better obedience" or "œPresbyterians better obedience" than Baptist´s. Because the latter will always lead to war and battle (I´m more obedient to God than you), pride and worthless pursuit. The former, showing the Gospel in it will lead to showing its truth for the elect will always seek the Cross as a moth to light. If the Baptist is shown and UNDERSTANDS this, he sees the Gospel in it, he will, perhaps slowly at first because its not easy (trust me I know), inevitably change and baptize his children. But until then he cannot because the Gospel is not seen by him there for his children, yet. However, once he sees it "“ it will be as irresistible as the first time he himself self beheld the Cross and came to Christ.

If the Baptist sees the Gospel in Holy Baptism for him and his child, that it is God´s gift, then he will see why it is a great sin to not do so. It´s not a great sin because to "œnot do it" you will "œnot merit" grace (which is why they struggle with it), but by "œnot doing it" you are hurting yourself by not taking hold of the Gospel via the waters of baptism for your children and yourself. Never forget that the Baptist view of baptism not only hurts their children but themselves, because it means something different to them than a means of grace. This is why Luther said if we fail to baptize children it will at length loose its true witness, the Gospel. And similarly Calvin when he said of the Anabaptist of his day that it will be of no avail to them.

Perhaps in principle it may help this way: We all would say it is a great sin, even the unforgivable sin, to not trust the Gospel. The "œcommand" to believe the Gospel comes in a "œcommanding" form, but not a meritorious law form of command (do this and live). Rather the commanding is necessary due to the limits of language, but the command "œto believe" is simply this, "œHERE is the food of life, I´m giving it to you, EAT IT, don´t be stupid, your dying, EAT IT and LIVE.". Now I´m sort of "œcommanding" there, but I´m not saying, "œIF you obey you will merit the offer". But rather, "œYou are dying fool, eat this, stop rolling back over in your grave and enjoying your death"¦Its yours, take, eat!!!" The command is more of a plea along with giving what it offers without merit, buying without money or capital. So, to fail to believe the Gospel thus commanded in a giving way is not to fail to merit something but a spurning of the free gift. That´s a big difference.

Thus, if the Baptist can begin to see that the "œcommand to baptize", mark, their children with the Gospel, the covenant of Grace, is really a spurning of a free gift being given for him and his child, and not a denying of a meritorious command, then he will eventually flee to receive it for the Baptist loves Christ too!

A warning to some Presbyterians here of which I am now days; be careful how and what you teach. If you legally attempt to draw the Baptist to baptize their children, and one can do this even using "grace" language and taxonomy (and I´ve very much made this mistake so I´m not being hypocritical) you will push them away further. And rightly so, for if they perceive it as Law and merit, they shouldn´t receive it so wrongly understood and taught, you would be just making a legal path out of baptism and they are right to reject that. You may have the form of baptism correct, baptizing your child, but you have it wrong if you yourself do not understand that the Gospel is in it and given to our children.

No, we should seek our Baptist brother´s and their children´s best interest, if you yourself TRULY love them and their children; and that is to bring them to a RICHER understanding and more fortified grasp of the Gospel in the Word and the two Sacraments. We should teach them the Gospel in it so that they are built up. We should seek that their children be baptized not as to a legal merit of "œobeying a command correctly", but to be brought to the Gospel IN Baptism. So that they no longer understand, "œUpon YOUR PROFESSION OF FAITH I baptize you"¦" But rather "œUpon THE GRACIOUS PROMISE OF GOD I baptize you (child or adult) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The former gives no Gospel to anyone hearing but points to a faith that may or may not be saving. No one is saved by "faith" but Christ in which faith receives, then why make baptism point to that by the institutional words if baptism is to point to Christ. The later gives the Gospel afresh to every ear hearing it "“ the promise of God of eternal life and cleansing of all sin by Christ´s blood. The later is EXACTLY how Peter instituted it in Acts 2, "œ"¦For the PROMISE is to you, and your children and to all who are far off (and their children too) to whom the Lord our God calls". Peter did not institute it upon faith but Christ and His Gospel.

If they SEE that, then they will come to baptism not just for their children but understand it for THEMSELVES in a Gospel way and their faith will grow. But if you argue with them in a legal way, then Satan is all the more pleased. For they will stay far away from the Gospel in baptism for themselves and their children, and perhaps you, though you baptize your children, really are just as far away from the Gospel in Baptism and the covenant of grace you claim to treasure, even though you baptize your children. Thus, Satan's war on the Gospel is propogated on both sides and we find ourselves not at all, Baptist or Presbyterians, that far away from Rome.

Blessings and peace to all,

Larry H.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[Puritanhead]

The Reformers on Baptism - from my May 18 blogspot:

Though, many Reformers continued to practice the doctrine of paedo-baptism (viz. infant baptism) or baptism by sprinkling as was the practice in the Roman church. However, many among those prominent Reformers readily conceded that baptism by immersion was the ancient, apostolic and established mode of baptism. Martin Luther wrote: "Baptism is a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word means and the mystery signifies." The respected church history chronicler Philip Schaff avowed, "Luther sought to restore immersion, but without effect" (History of the Christian Church. Vol. II, p. 251). Although, John Calvin admitted infant baptism by sprinkling was among the proper modes, he asserted that baptism by submersion was the practice of the early church and the Apostles. Calvin wrote: "The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church" (Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, Chapter XV). William Tyndale proclaimed belief in believer's baptism, declaring, "Baptism was a plunging into the water. Baptism to avail must include repentance, faith, and confession. The Church must, therefore, consist of believers."

Calvin and Luther apparently advocated covenant-breaking too.

C.H. Spurgeon exhorts believers:

Even small inconsistencies are dangerous. Little thorns make great blisters, little moths destroy fine garments, and little frivolities and little rogueries will rob religion of a thousand joys.

The little inconsistencies and ambiguity in the positions articulated are starting to cause great blisters.

 

[fredtgreco]

Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not breaking covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).

No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.

Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is not elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.

WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.

 

[Pilgrim]

Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the invisible covenant tantamount to Arminianism?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the invisible covenant tantamount to Arminianism?

If an Arminian dies in his Arminianism, was he elect?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Chris,
I have said a number of times that the elect will not fall away. The elect will persevere; the elect will repent and obey God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not breaking covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).

No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.

Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is not elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.

WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.

Gods elect will submit to His will; the elect cannot fall away Fred.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Isn't teaching that someone can be "cut off" from the invisible covenant tantamount to Arminianism?

Yes. It denies the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints:

WCF 17:1-3 WCF 17.1 They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.(1)

(1) Phil. 1:6; 2 Pet. 1:10; John 10:28,29; 1 John 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:5,9.

WCF 17.2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;(1) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ;(2) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them;(3) and the nature of the covenant of grace4) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.(5)

(1) 2 Tim. 2:18,19; Jer. 31:3.
(2) Heb. 10:10,14; Heb. 13:20,21; Heb. 9:12-15; Rom. 8:33-39; John 17:11,24; Luke 22:32; Heb. 7:25.
(3) John 14:16,17; 1 John 2:27; 1 John 3:9.
(4) Jer. 32:40.
(5) John 10:28; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 2:19.

WCF 17.3 Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;(1) and, for a time, continue therein2) whereby they incur God's displeasure,(3) and grieve His Holy Spirit,(4) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts;(5) have their hearts hardened,(6) and their consciences wounded;(7) hurt and scandalize others,(8) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.(9)

(1) Matt. 26:70,72,74.
(2) Ps. 51title) , 14.
(3) Isa. 64:5,7,9; 2 Sam. 11:27.
(4) Eph. 4:30.
(5) Ps. 51:8,10.12; Rev. 2:4; Cant. 5:2,3,4,6.
(6) Isa. 63:17; Mark 6:52; Mark 16:14.
(7) Ps. 32:3,4; Ps. 51:8.
(8) 2 Sam. 12:14.
(9) Ps. 89:31,32; 1 Cor. 11:32.

This is one of the cruxes of FV theology. Notice in the rejoinder to Lousianna Presbytery's vindication of Wilkins, the key issue was perseverance.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Go ahead and close it Matt. You are completely ignoring the "they are cut off from the invisible covenant" statements that Scott keeps making. No one here is saying that by sinning we are not breaking covenant with God. The difference is not in eternal/time distinctions, but in "breaking" (present, and not final) and "cut off" (final and declarative).

No believer can ever be "cut off" from the invisible covenant. No believer can ever "break" the invisible covenant. That is our doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is because *God* keeps them in covenant. It is about what God does to keep covenant, not us.

Scott has made baptism soteriological by applying to the invisible covenant and the nature of whether one is elect. he has said several times that the justified/elect will baptize their children. The immediate and obvious implication, which I can't believe you aren't getting, is that a man who professes faith in Christ, lives a life of spiritual fruit (cf. Gal 5-6), but does not baptize his children and dies is not elect and not justified. There is no other way around that statement.

WCF 28.5 clearly places baptism as the kind of sin that does not affect one's justification before God. There is no other way to take that. All the obfuscation in the world does not stop that.

Gods elect will submit to His will; the elect cannot fall away Fred.

God's elect do not submit to his will in all things at all times. The lives of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter and all the other saints are filled with instances of rebellion, sin and disobedience. Their standing as elect does not depend on their submission to God's will, but on the decree and good pleasure of God.

You keep saying the same thing, and avoiding the clear implicatio of your statement:

If someone does not submit to the will of God, he is not elect, because Gods elect will submit to His will. That makes justification dependent on obedience. In this case, baptism. This is exactly FV theoogy.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
I have said a number of times that the elect will not fall away. The elect will persevere; the elect will repent and obey God.

Then you appear to be saying that no Baptist is elect unless he performs the work of baptizing his children or repents of his error of being a Baptist before he dies.

Yesterday I posted this from Dr. Lee, from whose writings you and I have profited much.

Originally posted by Pilgrim
From Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren

We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including justified Baptists; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins).

Scott you here seem to be going beyond Dr. Lee, who is about as polemical a writer as there is on Baptism in our era. Here he refers to justified Baptists. He doesn't say they are apostate. Yes, he gives solemn warning to Baptists as you posted earlier. But I've found nowhere where Dr. Lee says that Baptists will be cut off from the invisible covenant.

As I posted earlier, teaching that someone can be cut off from the invisible covenant is to teach conditional security, hence, Arminianism.

 

[crhoades]

ESV Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--
4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things. Thanks.

Edit: Since we want to replace circumcision with baptism, would it be fair to substitute the word baptism in the above passage and not change the argument or is that something altogether different?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by crhoades
ESV Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--
4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things. Thanks.

Edit: Since we want to replace circumcision with baptism, would it be fair to substitute the word baptism in the above passage and not change the argument or is that something altogether different?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,

This is exactly on point, and identical to the argument Paul makes in Galatians (which came first to my mind because it is what I am preaching through).

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by crhoades
Probably showing my ignorance here...Is not Paul here lumping his covenantal faithfulness on the dung pile and clinging to Christ alone? How does this passage fit into our discussion. Forgive me if this will sidetrack things.

The Lord is the one and true faithful covenant-keeper!

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.
"”1 Corinthians 7:18-20 (New King James Version)

I think if wants to dwell on the sign of the covenant, then ponder its true significance.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Listen, if I sin today, and I don't repent of that sin (whatever it is), I'm BREAKING COVENANT with God.

Are you all that obtuse to be saying that you don't get that?

Which covenant? The CoG (of which the condition is faith alone) or the CoR (of which the condition is Christ's work alone) or the CoW (which we knew a long time ago)?

Not trying to be smart alekie, but serious in my inquiry.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election. "

When one says this it would have to be EXCEEDINGLY carefully qualified. Taken at face value its not necessarily a helpful statement because it does not divide between what happens covenantally and what happens soteriologically.

Overall, this thread is painful and probably should have stopped long ago.


Any sin for any covenant breaker would begin the process of excluding them from fellowship and they would follow down the road of apostasy as dealing with a sinning brother in church. That's Matthew 16 and 18. Sleep with your mother and don't repent, and you'll be excommunicated. Commit any GREAT SIN, and don't repent, and you will be excommunicated. (This includes ANY great sin.)

Do I need to post the same information as before on what Westminster thought concerning Sectarian groups and Independents? Their language is astoundingly harsh.

When a church excommunicates a brother, or treats a brothers as excommunicated, they are handing them over to Satan that they would repent. They treat them, now, not as brothers, but they are handed over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh. If they have tasted the heavenly gift, and been partakers of the Spirit in this regard, and do not repent, Hebrews tells us they no longer have sacrifice for sin via Christ. They are covenant breakers to the degree they are lost, and treated as such. (Again, we are taking ecclesiastically).

Again, this is not a soteriological issue as given in the decrees of God.

This is an ecclesiastical issue where we have to determine whether or not a sin is "a big deal" or a "great sin" in the eyes of the church.

For example, if someone were excommunicated from our church, and I was asked if "they were now saved" I'd have to answer that on TWO different levels. Level 1) According to the decree of God, I have no idea. Maybe yes, maybe no. But that is not where I live. I live in the here and now and have to deal with the issue of excommunication, and according to that, Level 2) I have to treat them as though they are unregenerate. If I don't treat them as a TAX COLLECTOR, then I am sinning against Christ and I need to repent. IF they repent, then they show themselves to me (not to God) to be saved. If they do not repent, I have to assume the worst and pray for the best.

Fred, you should have enough knowledge of Scott to make a determination like this about about his statements and sort it out. Not accusing of him of being a Federal Advocate, which is nonsense.

Do you allow Baptists to join your church or not? If you don't, you already are enacting a form of excommunication on them. I don't know if you practice close communion. We do. So our views on sacraments may be a little different there. But when our church becomes a particular church, only those in communion with us will take of the Supper, protecting the sacrament for the privilege of the church. In excluding others, its a form of excommunication of sorts. I am pressed to treat people in the mold of ecclesiology because I don't have privy information on how God's counsel works. We don't live there and can't make determinations there, so we have to follow biblical protocol. We hand them over to the DEVIL. (sadly)

So when Scott says, ""This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election. "" He is taking a practical step ecclesiastically. In other words, Baptists are not part of our church. We would not allow a Baptist to be part of our church unless they changed their views. The very fact that we believe them to be in error, we would not commune with them in that manner. They are, as the Confession states, "practicing", consistently, without remorse or repentance, a GREAT SIN. What do we practically do with those who do not repent of practicing GREAT SINS? (Is this really that difficult of a question?)

If they were in our church, and then changed their views without repenting, we would HAVE to excommunicate them if they are practicing a GREAT SIN.

The whole wishy washy "just let them move on to another church so they can worship how they like" is a jettison of conviction at every level for me if I did that, and a reproach against the Biblical Doctrine of Christ's Authority. Oh no, now we are back to Jus Divinum. If I didn't follow through practically, I would be concurring with them that THE GREAT SIN would be OK.

Do you concur with them? Allow them fellowship in your church?

This should not be so difficult for the elders on this board to figure out unless they have simply overlooked the practical nature of the church itself.

The thread would easy be explunged by the division of the decree and ecclesiology.