Paedobaptism view of Credobaptist Children

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

Totally with you, great question.

Not the CoR. (I can't break that one - its electory). Not the internal CoG (Can't break that one, its electory). But the external priveldges CoG as it applies to the visible church (ouch! I am a covenant breaker in the eyes of the church, and God binds and looses me from the church through thier decision to excommunicate me.). But remember, by continuing in that course, to human eyes that watch me, I may show myself as lost. They may have to excommunicate me as a result of unrepentant sin.

I already broke the CoW in Adam.

Jeff, make it REALLY simple. When your best friends sins, falls, and does not repent, the church excommunicates him, and you see him leave the church altogether and go back to his pagan ways, what do you think of him practically?

How do you pray for him? Do you say, Oh Lord please sanctify my friend? Or do you pray that God would save him and grant him repentance?

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Matt,

You must not be reading the same thread as I am. Scott has several times stated (and you have tacitly endorsed) that credobaptists are cut off from the "invisible" and "internal" covenant. He has stated that the elect will obey God's commands, and that those commands include baptizing infants. He has stated (or as much as stated) that those who never obey God's commands (read: baptizing children) are not God's elect. If they are not God's elect, they must not ever have been justified, since the justified can never totally (at any time) nor finally (in the end) fall away/commit apostasy (see WCF 17).

The discussion that I have been having is not an ecclesiastical one. It is a soteriological one - because that is the issue. I have not objected to language which says that the credobaptist is in violation of the visible covenant and is denying his children the privileges of covenantal membership that are rightfully theirs by birth (Gen 15 again, and elsewhere). But to bring the invisible/internal into a discussion about baptism IS Federal Vision. I am not saying that Scott is a FV advocate. I am saying that his confused, unhelpful and unpastorally inflammatory language is Federal Vision-ish and butresses their claims. It must be rejected.

To bring ecclesiology into this (as you are doing) is merely to confuse the issue. These are discussions for another time (and yes, we allow baptists to join since our requirements per the BCO are a credible profession of faith in Christ, not adherance to the Confession; and we practice close, not closed communion, sicne you appear to practice closed communion - only those in your church commune). The direct questions, that deserves a direct answer are:

Can a man be cut off from God in Christ because of his sin of neglecting the baptism of his children? Is a credobaptist cut off from the invisible and internal covenant with God (which must be the Covenant of Grace, per WCF)?

The Confession says clearly "no" in WCF 28.5. More than once, Scott has said "yes" and has dismissed 28.5 by saying, "they could not have been talking about baptists" (see above).

I've been waiting for a clear answer to these questions now for more than a day.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
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)

Well, I guess our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and the apostles couldn't join a RPCGA church in our day and age, because they're covenant-breaking credo-baptists.

It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
"”Mark 1:9-11

Believer's baptism is biblical! "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized" (John 3:23). Now, why did John the Baptist want to goto place with "much water" to perform baptism? "...And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). Again, why go down to the water to perform baptism? Sprinkling and pouring merely requires that one bring the water to the person being doused with water. Notice the following verse, "Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away... and he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). In order that that man come up out of the water, he first had to be submerged down into the water.

Finally, just read Luke 3:15-17; Luke 3:21-22; Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:4-11; John 1:29-34 if you need an added baptismal doctrinal lesson.

Yeah, one has to lift weights and freebase creatine to be a Baptist preacher... some of these baptizees aren't featherweights you know. Yes, we could take the easy way out like those hydrophobic denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians, but we're sticking with the Bible's way.

I can understand those Presbyterians who say credo-baptism and submersion is unnecessary, however, I find the ones who hold the extremes positions analagous to F.N. Lee to be rather comical.

 

[Puritanhead]

Forgive me for my blunt inquisitiveness, but I am to take it that Scott and/or Matthew agree with the position of F.N. Lee articulated in The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren?

Herein this thread, Scott quotes Lee at length as an authority on the matter. Earlier, I was of the mindset to remind Scott to quit while he was ahead (or behind depending on your perspective,) but since the issue has been pressed: this is a reasonable inquiry. The question stands.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Forgive me for my blunt inquisitiveness, but I am to take it that Scott and/or Matthew agree with the position of F.N. Lee articulated in The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren?

Herein this thread, Scott quotes Lee at length as an authority on the matter. Earlier, I was of the mindset to remind Scott to quit while he was ahead (or behind depending on your perspective,) but since the issue has been pressed: this is a reasonable inquiry. The question stands.

Answer: Yes!

 

[Dave L]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
If an Arminian dies in his Arminianism, was he elect?

It's a braver (or more foolhardy) man than I that will say John Wesley was not elect.

In error? Yes, on many points - as are we all.

But not saved at all?

PLEASE don't open that can of worms.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Answer: Yes!

Thanks for being straightforward and not beating around the bush.

For the record, I am not an anabaptist. I was never re-baptized. Me and my pastor did manage to get my baptism right the first time.

 

[JohnV]

I have not been following this thread post by post, but rather just dropped in from time to time to read the most recent posts only. Some of the claims disturb me, but all the same it has brought many things to mind that I have wrestled with myself. I would like to weigh in, if I may.

When I was much younger, before my children were of school-age, we supported Christian School. But the people who made up the bulk of the membership decided to incorporate a kindergarten class, on the basis of the baptismal vow, to "having (the children) instructed". In other words, the ramification was that, if you didn't send your children to this kindergarten program that you were in violation of your baptismal vow. "Instructing them", which precedes "and having them instructed",was taken to be excluded once the children became of age to attend school. This became more explicit later, in response to our home-schooling. In other words, my family became "covenant breakers" when we decided that our children did not need to attend school until they were seven or eight years old. (This was in deference to our son, who definitely needed that extra year, maybe two, at home at that time.) We understood and appreciated, and supported, the need for Christian School, but this was taking it too far, we thought.

We still believe this. But it has left some nagging questions. Baptism is included in the the sacraments, which, when properly administrated, is a mark of a true church. And the teaching on baptism is an integral part of the confessional ecclesiastical position. It is, in fact, an essential part of the confessional-doctrinal affirmation of the church. At what point does one judge another as outside the covenant bonds? It did not mean that we would be excommunicated, but it did mean that I was no longer eligible for office in the church. Was that right? I believed rather that the church was misunderstanding the teaching of baptism, and had made it a legalistic thing.

We are forced to conclude that one ought not to take baptism lightly. I think that, if we were honest with ourselves, that we knew this going into the discussions four or five years ago, when the PuritanBoard first started up with the intent of engaging upon this discussion: the two views were doctrinally exclusive of each other. Hence, what Scott and Matt are saying, in part, is only naturally and intrinsically part of the discussion, that the paedo view regards the credo view as a breaking of the baptismal instruction of the Word, and that the credo view regards the paedo view as a breaking of the baptismal instruction of the Word.

But that seems to be as far as we can go with this. To be excluding the other view from the covenant, when it is clear that God has also illumined and blessed the other with the same knowledge of the salvation of Christ, is to judge where God has not judged. What I mean is that I recognize the Spirit of God in my Baptist brothers, even though I know that they have transgressed the commands of God in regard to baptism. It seems that, either God has not blessed me with the knowledge that they may have, or that God has not blessed them with the knowledge that I have. And that is how I must address the issue with my Baptist brothers. In regards to the confessional stance of the church, they have broken the regulation; but in regards to their confessional stance I have broken the regulation.

I know these are exclusive of each other, and that such exclusion has serious ramifications. But the onus is not on the other, it is upon me. I need to understand fully that I have erred, and not presume upon my own understanding. And even if I hold the correct view, am I holding it correctly? For some reason God has us living side-by-side with fellow covenant members who are just as convinced of their view as I am of mine. That is to say that it is almost quite beside the point that their reasonings don't convince me, for that may be as much my own fault as it could be their fault: it doesn't depend on their reasoning, but on sound reasoning from Scripture.

What I mean is that we in our time have a wrong-headed tendency to decide on an issue based upon our best educated conclusions, and circumvent the need for good and necessary consequence. We tend to equate being personally convinced by the preponderance of evidence with sure and inescapable truth, and then equste these conclusions with Scripture itself. That is clearly what I had to face in the Reconstructionist fiasco in my own church. Hence we have people propagating doctrines which they profess to be truth of God on the mere fact that no one has yet dethroned their notions. In short, pride is more of a certifier than sound reason.

I have to agree that my church believes that the Baptist who refuses to baptize his children disregards God's promises, and disobeys the clear teaching of Scripture. Yet it is also true that I must appear so to them. It is also true that God has not refused covenant membership to them or to me, for surely God has blessed them just as he has blessed me, and that they too share in the same knowledge of salvation that God has granted me. That means that, though they have shown disobedience in the promises of faith, that God has not therefore excluded them, according the what we can see of their life and doctrine, and not just in regards to baptism alone. We ought not to exclude those whom God has not excluded, using the church to do so, for that is a misuse of the church. That is not what the church teaches, though it does teach rightly that it is disobedience to disregard or to change God's ordinances and sacraments. The Church has made this declaration, but not so as to exclude, but to include. And that is what baptism represents, a sign and seal of inclusion in the covenantal promises to those who belong to Christ, laid by Christ upon His own through His ministers of His Word.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

God specifically commanded the covenant sign to be placed on the children.

God specifically instructed His people about the importance of the covenant sign, so much so that those who did not do so broke covenant with Him.

God has never rescinded that command at any time, and in any way.

Christ himself said that the Kingdom of heaven "belongs" to little children, using the same covenant formula that God used with Abraham, also quoted in Acts 2.


[Edited on 9-1-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

Well, actually, God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because is baptism the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The new covenant was inaugerated in Gen 3 and consumated at Calvary.

How can the NC be inaugurated in 4,000 or so BC? In 600 BC, God says, "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Jer 31:31 (NKJV). If the days are coming in 600 BC, how can they have already come in 4,000 BC? Gen 3:15 is a promise. So are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. As it is written: 'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.' Heb 11:13 (NKJV).

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

They are in the external covenant; the visible church. I ask you, if you had asked Abraham if Ishamel was in or out of the covenant he would have looked at you like you were mad.

He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by non dignus


I don't want to divert the thread. In answer, we are all children of Abraham. That promise hasn't changed. The category here is Abrahamic, not Mosaic.

Gen 3:7. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'

Therefore only those who profess faith should receive the covenant sign.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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