Question on Paedobaptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does dealing with reformed Baptists always cause severe headaches?

David,
I'll let the RB's deal with you on the matter of clarity on the "RB" position. Your answers have been clear as mud, self-defeating and contradictory, hence, Scott's questioning.....
 
One thing causes me frustration, yes, two things vex me greatly.

A paedobaptist who thinks he understands the credo position well but actually does not, and a credo who doesn't understand the credo position well but thinks he does.

Both are in evidence in this thread, and that's because we credos haven't done the best job over the last 400 years of making sure our people know (consistently) why we are what we are.
 
I previously asked:


To which you responded with:



Your response is not directly answering my question. Again, I ask, if the gospel is the same in both testamental periods, would you agree that the OT saint had to have the indwelling spirit so as to not immediately apostatize the faith and have no potential for sanctification without Him?
I believe that the OT saints were saved same way any of us have been, and that they re included in the saved Body of Christ, but I do not honestly know if all under the OC received the Holy Spirit in exactly same fashion we have, or if He indwelt only the prophets, Kings, priests.

I see God as not holding their sins against them, as He had their sins paid for and atoned for by the coming Cross of Jesus, but not sure if every saved person received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same fashion as we have now under the New Covenant.

I have tried to study on this issue a bit, and seems that there is not a fully unified position even among Calvinists/Reformed upon this issue.
 
One thing causes me frustration, yes, two things vex me greatly.

A paedobaptist who thinks he understands the credo position well but actually does not, and a credo who doesn't understand the credo position well but thinks he does.

Both are in evidence in this thread, and that's because we credos haven't done the best job over the last 400 years of making sure our people know (consistently) why we are what we are.
Please elaborate on what the Credo position really means.
 
but I do not honestly know if all under the OC received the Holy Spirit in exactly same fashion we have, or if He indwelt only the prophets, Kings, priests


Thank u for your answer. Thats helps.

2 questions to think about:
1) How would sanctification of the saint be possible if the HS were not in that person?

2)How could a person not immediately apostatize the faith if he didn't have the indwelling of the HS?
 
Thanks u for your answer. Thats helps.

2 questions to think about:
1) How would sanctification of the saint be possible if the HS were not in that person?

2)How could a person not immediately apostatize the faith if he didn't have the indwelling of the HS?
I honestly do not know those answers, but also wonder how Jesus being our High priest now, which he was not under the OC, helps us to maintain our faith and walk with God?
 
I honestly do not know those answers, but also wonder how Jesus being our High priest now, which he was not under the OC, helps us to maintain our faith and walk with God?

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law

David,
Jesus was under the OC. He kept the Covenant of Works, perfectly. Christ cannot help anyone maintain our faith without the Holy Spirit guiding us-thats the point I am trying to make.

If the gospel is the same, as u say, the HS would have to indwell both sets of saints.
 
They would not have had direct access to God though, nor Jesus as their High priest, correct?

If I am understanding your question, If one believed in Christ/Messiah, Jesus would have to have been high priest. If there is only one gospel, that gospel would be through the mediation of Christ alone, never mind the time period.
 
Christ was held out under the type of the OT high priest, just as the sacrifice of a lamb and it’s shed blood depicted the coming Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. It required faith to believe in the substance of the type, and faith is required to believe in the reality that has fulfilled the type. No man can say that Jesus is Lord save by the Holy Spirit, whether in the OT or New.
 
If I am understanding your question, If one believed in Christ/Messiah, Jesus would have to have been high priest. If there is only one gospel, that gospel would be through the mediation of Christ alone, never mind the time period.
Jesus was not Jesus though until being the Incarnate God man at His birth, and He was just God the Son before that, so how could He be always functioning as our High Priest?
 
Christ was held out under the type of the OT high priest, just as the sacrifice of a lamb and it’s shed blood depicted the coming Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. It required faith to believe in the substance of the type, and faith is required to believe in the reality that has fulfilled the type. No man can say that Jesus is Lord save by the Holy Spirit, whether in the OT or New.
There was no Jesus until the Incarnation time though, for he was just God the Son, so was not yet in Hos roles as Mediator/Messiah.
 
David, the gospel existed in the OT and was dressed in types and shadows, which depicted a spiritual reality to come. The slain lamb represented Christ; Aaron the high priest typified Christ; the Temple, the altar, the candlestick, everything in that dispensation emblamatically represented Him. So that the OT believer looked on these shadows, and by faith saw their substance as pointing to Christ and his atoning work. Now you have never seen Christ, but by faith you believe on Him through his word. You take communion and do so by partaking of the elements that represent Christ and His atonement. The OT saint similarly saw the Christ who was to come, and you look back and see Him by faith through His word. Recall also that the Lord appeared in Christophanies in the OT. He the “angel of the covenant”went before Israel in the wilderness, and also manifested himself to Abraham and others. There is no difference between the salvation in both testaments, and it by the same Christ.
 
David, the gospel existed in the OT and was dressed in types and shadows, which depicted a spiritual reality to come. The slain lamb represented Christ; Aaron the high priest typified Christ; the Temple, the altar, the candlestick, everything in that dispensation emblamatically represented Him. So that the OT believer looked on these shadows, and by faith saw their substance as pointing to Christ and his atoning work. Now you have never seen Christ, but by faith you believe on Him through his word. You take communion and do so by partaking of the elements that represent Christ and His atonement. The OT saint similarly saw the Christ who was to come, and you look back and see Him by faith through His word. Recall also that the Lord appeared in Christophanies in the OT. He the “angel of the covenant”went before Israel in the wilderness, and also manifested himself to Abraham and others. There is no difference between the salvation in both testaments, and it by the same Christ.
I agree with you on this, but I also see Jesus as not being the High priest under the OC, as He was then only God the Son, and had not yet shed His blood, and died and rose up again to heaven.
 
So, Jesus was 'Jesus' then?



No one is arguing against that.....needless to say, Christ was high Priest inside and outside of time for the elect, never mind the time period.
There was no Jesus until the time of the Incarnation though, at least not in regards to His humanity.
 
and had not yet shed His blood, and died and rose up again to heaven.

Rev 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
 
Rev 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.
 
Before the incarnation, was the Second person of the truine God "just" the Logos, word, God the Son?

Is God the Son, Jesus?

yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.

No one is arguing against that; what is being argued is that the efficacious nature of Christ extends outside of time. This is exactly why the cited passage in Revelation states. Was Christ the lamb, slain before the foundation of the world?
Well, in the compound sense, yes. In the divided, no. This is where you are failing to make the biblical distinction.
 
yes, the messiah of God was to be slain , ordained by God from eternity past, but there was a time when God the Son took on His humanity, and became Jesus.

Yes, but the efficacious nature of Christ's dying, extends from Gen 3:15, forward.
 
Before the incarnation, was the Second person of the truine God "just" the Logos, word, God the Son?

I have no idea what u are asking....Jesus is the Logos, the 2nd person of the Trinity, God the Son. He didn't become anyone new, outside of His humanity when he was born. He was still the same Son and Word.
 
We have moved from the original post, and I tender apologies. But I would leave this last comment. David, did our Lord in human nature wear the High Priestly garments, or his mitre, or breast plate? Evidently not. So how do you know He was a High Priest? Would it not be in the same way as the OT believer? They by faith looked to Him as Prophet. Priest and King as designated and foretold in His word, and symbolically before their eyes in Caiaphas’ person.
You now by faith believe the word that He bears the office of High Priest. It’s a spiritual understanding in both testaments. Aaron could never represent the church or offer sacrifice for sin as High Priest, but represented a greater to come, on which the worshiper trusted.
 
Yes, but the efficacious nature of Christ's dying, extends from Gen 3:15, forward.
Yes, for in the way God sees all things, the Cross of Jesus was already an accomplish event, but one that still had to be worked out in our historical time frame.
 
I have no idea what u are asking....Jesus is the Logos, the 2nd person of the Trinity, God the Son. He didn't become anyone new, outside of His humanity when he was born. He was still the same Son and Word.
Before he became Human and dwelt among us, he was not Jesus of Nazareth though, but was the Word of God/Logos/God the Son. He did not exist as having humanity until the Incarnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top