Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

[Herald]

So I ask again, why does Ps. 127:3 have a regulative import on the NT church, but the references in Ezekiel and Joel do not, which indicate they are God's children and a part of God's congregation?

Matthew - in reading Ezekiel 16 in context, I still don't see a disconnect. God (through the prophet) is telling Israel that she came from near death and was blessed and established by God. This chapter shares similar themes with that of the Song of Solomon. You can almost see chapter 3 of Ruth when God says, Ezekiel 16:8 8 "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord God. But keeping Romans 9:6 in mind, this covenant does not mean all of Israel were of faith. In fact, the Lord alludes to this in verses 15-24 when he details Israel's adulteries.

When the Lord indicts Israel (vs. 20-21), He calls their children "Mine." Is the Lord saying these chidren are saved? Is their part in the covenant equal with being regenerate? No. These children belonged to God just as Israel belonged to God (vs. 8).

Joel 2 is similar to Ezekiel in that the nation had played the harlot and was facing judgment. The very fact that Israel had turned her heart to other God's and abandoned the LORD their God is proof that not all were of faith. Did God have a covenant with Israel? Of course! Did Israel play the harlot, and Judah too? Again, of course! But did not Moses warn the nation of God's severe wrath for forsaking the LORD God (Deut. 28)? Because the nation was under covenant, the nation was called to repent. In Joel 2:16 the situation Israel faced was so desperate that all were called to repent. Indeed, in verse 3 the LORD tells the people, ...rend your heart and not your garments." What was the LORD looking for? He was looking for the same Israel that Paul was describing in Romans 9.

Matthew, I am sure you will disagree with my exegesis, but please do not say that I have avoided the passages you asked about.

 

[MW]

Matthew, I am sure you will disagree with my exegesis, but please do not say that I have avoided the passages you asked about.

Bill, please consult ver. 21 of Ezek. 16, "my children;" and ver. 16 of Joel 2, "gather the children, and those that suck the breasts." I am glad you see there is no disconnect in these passages. It should make it easier for you to acknowledge the regulative import of these principles for the NT.

 

[Herald]

Bill, please consult ver. 21 of Ezek. 16, "my children;" and ver. 16 of Joel 2, "gather the children, and those that suck the breasts." I am glad you see there is no disconnect in these passages. It should make it easier for you to acknowledge the regulative import of these principles for the NT.

Matthew - help me out here. I would like you to finish this connect-the-dots excercise. Where in the N.T. are you going with this?

 

[Ezekiel3626]

What do ya mean, funny? Let me understand this cause, I don't know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh... I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

 

[MW]

Matthew - help me out here. I would like you to finish this connect-the-dots excercise. Where in the N.T. are you going with this?

Bill, You assert that your children are a gift from God. You use a reference from the OT Scriptures to support it, Ps. 127. The OT reference understands they are a gift in the context of describing covenant blessedness. How do you continue to maintain your children are a gift, but not a covenant gift? Other OT passages, e.g., Ezek. 16:21, Joel 2:16, indicate that our children are God's children, and that they are a part of God's congregation. You are willing to accept the abiding validity of Ps. 127, divorced from its covenantal context, but you reject the abiding validity of Ezek. 16:21, and Joel 2:16. Why?

 

[Herald]

Bill, You assert that your children are a gift from God. You use a reference from the OT Scriptures to support it, Ps. 127. The OT reference understands they are a gift in the context of describing covenant blessedness. How do you continue to maintain your children are a gift, but not a covenant gift? Other OT passages, e.g., Ezek. 16:21, Joel 2:16, indicate that our children are God's children, and that they are a part of God's congregation. You are willing to accept the abiding validity of Ps. 127, divorced from its covenantal context, but you reject the abiding validity of Ezek. 16:21, and Joel 2:16. Why?

Matthew - I have no problem answering your questions. Would answer the one I posed to you in the last post? Please support this in the N.T. Where is the connection(s)? I promise you that I'll answer you questions. The door does go both ways.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Why should we look for "professors" if we don't think the New Covenant (which is made with the elect, remember) is made up of only believers/professors?

My question would be, since the new covenant is only for the elect, how do you know they are the elect? You must go back to what circumcision was, a seal of righteousness. How was one righteous before God? His faith made him righteous before God. Then he was circumcised.

But then you say, "Yes, but even God tells abraham to circumcise not himself but his decendants as well." But according to the new covenant we are "the sons of Abraham". How are we sons of Abraham, "through the promise". The promise cannot be made to those who are not the elect, but can only be made to those who are the elect, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Again, statements like these are said:

"election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is. "

But you can not say, without a doubt, your child is part of the elect. To state that is to say you are God. I have said thise before, and will say it again, you cannot know anyone is elect unless they produce the fruits of an elect.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Thanks again

In English, you are correct: age and ageless mean different things. We are not discussing English, however. We are discussing Greek. And in the Greek language, words are formed off of roots. If you add a noun ending to the root (as in hagios), you have a noun. If you have a verbal ending (as in hagiazo), you have a verb. The root carries the basic meaning, and adding an ending does not change that. The root of both words (hag) has to do with holiness or being holy, set apart, or consecrated. The verb used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is hegiastai, which is the perfect passive indicative form of the verb. It does not indicate a process, but a completed action with present results. If Paul had wanted to speak of a process, he would have used the present active indicative form. The examples you adduce do not prove your point either. In John 17:19, Jesus is saying that He sanctifies Himself so that those who believe in Him might be sanctified (perfect passive participle), not that they might enter a process of sanctification. Rather, He speaks of placing them in a state of holiness in the truth, not beginning them on a road to holiness. Acts 26:18 contains another perfect passive participle, which indicates a past action. It speaks of those who have been sanctified, not of those who are being or are in the process of becoming sanctified. A different verb form would have been used if that was intended. Romans 15:16 is (guess what!) another perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action. He is saying that he wants his offering of the Gentiles to become acceptable, that is, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If you were to translate the Greek according to your interpretation, you would have to say that Paul wants his offering to become acceptable, that is, be in the process of being sanctified, which makes no sense. Finally, 1 Corinthians 1:2 reads, literally, "To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." Here you run into a problem. According to your interpretation, these people are in the process of being sanctified, but they are called hagios. It is the same class of people referred to by (what you would call) two different words.

Again, I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. It is just that your argumentation and use of Greek are bad. The grammar does not support you here. There are better arguments for paedobaptism and you should not junk up your argumentation with bad exegesis.

Hay:

Sanctification is a process of being made holy - it is not to be confused with glorification. Though believers are set apart in this life it is clear that they are not fully sanctified until we reach heaven (unless you hold John Wesley's views).

An unbeliever cannot be "sanctified" in the same way that a believer can be sanctified. If the unbelieving spouse comes to faith in Christ, then he/she did so through the "sanctifying" influences of the believing spouse. If he/she does not, then it seems that the believing spouse at least had a controlling influence to reign in sin "sanctifying" the unbeliever. Otherwise their marriage would be unholy. It seems to me that the term "process" here best explains this relationship, maybe "influence" would be better?

I have not the time to reprint it, but I will refer you to Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry on this verse. Maybe I will be able to reprint it later, or, maybe you can give me your take on what they say?

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Again, statements like these are said:

"election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is. "

But you can not say, without a doubt, your child is part of the elect.

Whoever made that claim?

To state that is to say you are God. I have said thise before, and will say it again, you cannot know anyone is elect unless they produce the fruits of an elect.

And then you can say they are elect? Please explain how.

You really did miss the very specific refutation offered by Paul and myself. I don't know if you were in a rush and skimmed right over the presentation. Before we begin a "do loop" and try to re-explain what the comments you quoted by myself and Paul really argued, please take the time to re-read carefully and determine what is being argued.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Originally Posted by SemperFideles
To both Mark and Ryan,

If you read what I said, I honestly felt that it was unfair of me to stay in the fray with Mark. Rev. Winzer and Paul are like two battleships of Covenant theology and they didn't need my little Frigate to keep after Mark. I do not despise Mark in the least and I was only trying to give Mark a break from having to answer all 3 of us. I do believe he needed to consider some of the matters more fully and it was not meant in a pejorative but a brotherly sense.

I'm gratified that he appeared to take it that way.

Rich,

I read what you wrote. I don't doubt the spirit in which you wrote it at all, and I don't believe you were despising Mark. I was simply trying to edify the young man in light of the comment about his age. It was my way of encouraging him to stand his ground. After all, as you always say, these debates aren't for the faint of heart.

God bless!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Roger that brother. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I had given unnecessary offense to the lad.

 

[MW]

Matthew - I have no problem answering your questions. Would answer the one I posed to you in the last post? Please support this in the N.T. Where is the connection(s)? I promise you that I'll answer you questions. The door does go both ways.

Bill, you've already made the NT connection when you said the OT teaching that children are a gift of God continues into the NT. I believe the OT is a rule of faith and life as well as the NT. So do you, else you wouldn't have said children are a gift of God. As it stands, there is no disconnection.

The NT connection is clear from Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Who are these saints and faithful ones? "Children, chap. 6:1. Hence, how are children to be treated? "In the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Again, Col. 1:2, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Who are included amongst these? "Children," chap. 3:20. Such was the acceptance of this principle amongst the churches that the apostle thought it was needful to address the question of mixed marriages in 1 Cor. 7, in order to confirm the sanctified status of the children of these marriages.

 

[Herald]

Bill, you've already made the NT connection when you said the OT teaching that children are a gift of God continues into the NT. I believe the OT is a rule of faith and life as well as the NT. So do you, else you wouldn't have said children are a gift of God. As it stands, there is no disconnection.

This point was never in contention.

The NT connection is clear from Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Who are these saints and faithful ones? "Children, chap. 6:1. Hence, how are children to be treated? "In the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Again, Col. 1:2, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Who are included amongst these? "Children," chap. 3:20. Such was the acceptance of this principle amongst the churches that the apostle thought it was needful to address the question of mixed marriages in 1 Cor. 7, in order to confirm the sanctified status of the children of these marriages.

This is in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt. You are trying to make the point that Paul is writing about children (Eph. 6:1) from a covenantal standpoint? Paul is writing about familal relationships. He is addressing every member of the nuclear family. This epistle is not a treatise on covenantalism. In Eph. 2:1 Paul calls these saints, "faithful in Christ Jesus." How can an unregenerate child be faithful? Unless, dear brother, you believe that children of the covenant are already regenerate. Honestly, this whole discussion will come into focus if that is your belief. I do not believe infants are regenerate in the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8-10). But I digress. In summary, just because Paul mentions children in Eph. 1:1 does not mean there is a covenantal connection with Eph. 1:1.

Since Colossians and Ephesians share the same theme, just insert my above comments here.

Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.

 

[tellville]

I want to thank everyone for their encouraging comments. I am still very much enjoying reading the thread and all the threads on Baptism and Covenant Theology. I will continue to reflect on the things I read.

Don't worry Rich, I did not take offense.

 

[MW]

This point was never in contention.

This is precisely what I am building on. You allow that children are a gift of God on the basis of an Old Testament affirmation which is made in the context of covenanted blessings. How do you strip away the covenanted blessings and still maintain that children are a gift. Do you have a NT warrant for it?

This is in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt. You are trying to make the point that Paul is writing about children (Eph. 6:1) from a covenantal standpoint? Paul is writing about familal relationships. He is addressing every member of the nuclear family. This epistle is not a treatise on covenantalism. In Eph. 2:1 Paul calls these saints, "faithful in Christ Jesus." How can an unregenerate child be faithful? Unless, dear brother, you believe that children of the covenant are already regenerate. Honestly, this whole discussion will come into focus if that is your belief. I do not believe infants are regenerate in the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8-10). But I digress. In summary, just because Paul mentions children in Eph. 1:1 does not mean there is a covenantal connection with Eph. 1:1.

Paul is addressing a church, and as such he regards them as saints and faithful. Within the context of the letter to this church he specifically addresses "children." He does not break in on his letter and say, Please tarry while I address some others who are not a part of you, and then write "Children." He writes to the children in the letter addressed to the church.

Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.

And all this applies as equally to adults, Bill.

 

[govols]

Interested to know what Spurgeon thought of Paedo / Credo baptism.

 

[Herald]

This is precisely what I am building on. You allow that children are a gift of God on the basis of an Old Testament affirmation which is made in the context of covenanted blessings. How do you strip away the covenanted blessings and still maintain that children are a gift. Do you have a NT warrant for it?

Matthew - I am not at all pinning my argument on Psalm 125 alone. James writes:

[bible]James 1:17-18[/bible]

And good gifts are not limited solely to the righteous.

[bible]Matthew 5:45[/bible]

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible]

Why would God shower the unrighteous with good things, in this case children? Could it be that the elect of God are not limited to covenant families? Could it be that God's purpose is to call His elect even from the midst of the unrighteous? I believe God does both. He calls His elect from the midst of the righteous (what you would call a covenant family) and from the unrighteous. But the point is that good gifts, in this case children, are not attached solely to a covenant. Of course, I am supposing that children are a gift regardless of what type of family they are born into.

Paul is addressing a church, and as such he regards them as saints and faithful. Within the context of the letter to this church he specifically addresses "children." He does not break in on his letter and say, Please tarry while I address some others who are not a part of you, and then write "Children." He writes to the children in the letter addressed to the church.

I stand by my position. I see no covenantal aspect regarding children in either Ephesians or Colossians.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis
Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.

And all this applies as equally to adults, Bill.

I would hope so. Infants do grow up to be adults. Faith is necessary for salvation no matter what the age.

Summary:

Matthew - while I appreciate the exchange it only serves to emphasize the deep, systemic divide we have on this issue. As someone once told me, "It is what it is." In the other thread that Rich and I both referenced, it reached a point where the discussion just started regurgitating what was said earlier. I think we are approaching that point. There reaches a point where we have said our piece. I think I have said mine, unless you believe there is something new to add.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Huh?

The new covenant is not only for the elect. I mean, you can assert that.

And, according to the new testament, the children of faith have always been the children of Abraham.

This didn't change in the NT.

Yet they still gave their physical offspring the sign.

Seems like your post refutes your position.

The "promise" cannot be made to those who are not elect, as you say, but yet non-elect and infants received the sign of this promise.

Your position refutes itself.

Paul, obviously you don't understand that the seal came after Abraham was justified.

 

[satz]

Rich,

I remember we had a short discussion on the logicality of Baptists claiming the OT promises and commands regarding child training while denying baptism to their children in the other thread you started. I have been thinking on the matter a bit since then. I am not claiming to have come up with anything revolutionary, but since some of the points were brought up in this thread I hoped to chime in a bit.

Regarding what you said in this thread:

"See, you say, Paul says to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord."

"Fine," says I, "that's because they're in the Covenant. We expect he would be commanding them to because children have always been commanded to do so, because they're in the Covenant."

"No, they're not," you say, "Paul is expressing here that, even though they're not in the Covenant anymore, all those other passages that applied to Covenant members with respect to nurture and admonition now apply to them anyway."

I ask: "Where did you get all that from such a short passage?"

I am not sure why you say we can’t get such a principle from the passage (I would not phrase the priciple exactly that way though). Paul is directly setting out the duties of members of Christian families here, and in doing so he refers back to an OT passage, so wouldn’t that indicate he is telling us the general principle still applies? regardless of what other changes have occurred in the transition between the Old and New Testament aren’t Paul’s words here enough to tell us that these particular things from the OT still apply?

I am also a little curious over your statement that that the command to teach our children is meaningless if they are not part of the covenant. I am not sure that necessarily follows. I wrote this in the other thread:

I would also note that while I do not believe children are in covenant with God before faith in the same way as they would have been in the Old Testament – they are not considered church members from birth – but the relationship between parents and child is not something I believe is inherently tied up with God’s covenant with his OT people. So to be disobedient to one’s parents was a sin even for gentiles under none of the OT covenant obligations. Likewise parent’s obligation to their children is, I believe something tied up in the moral way God created the world and not restricted to any of the covenants between God and his people in the OT. Off course the specific detail that parents should raise their children to fear God is part of the covenantal obligations, but like I said, that is expressly repeated in the NT.

Consider also 1 Cor 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Firstly, I would not care in this thread to comment upon what I means for the children to be holy, but just to focus on the what it says about the spouse. To my knowledge, paedobaptists would not claim an adult, unbelieving spouse is in covenant with God simply by virtue of marriage to a Christian. But the verse says they are sanctified. So I would use this just to prove the logical point that it does matter that one is in a Christian family. To phrase it another way, in an earlier post on this thread you asked the question: where do you get this half-way kind of category (my langugue, not yours) where a Baptist child is not yet in covenant with God, yet God considers him special in some way such that the parents can call upon the promises and commands regarding child training. So I would use this verse to say such a proposition is not inherently inconsistent with the scriptures. But I would not use this verse to explain exactly what is a Baptist child’s standing before God. Again, I would go back to Eph 6- God tells his or her parents to bring him or her up the fear and nurture of the Lord.

If we ignore (just pretend for a moment) the question of whether or not our children are in covenant with God, what is wrong with this reasoning:

1) God commands me to raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord

2) God tells me that circumcision, the ordinance that explicitly included infants, is no longer practiced in the New Testament.

3) God tells me baptism must have a profession of faith first (some will disagree I know)

If I believed all these things were true from the bible, why could I not bring up my children in a Christian manner while baptizing them at the time the bible tells me to (just grant me the point for the sake of argument). The logical details of whether they are in or out of the covenant, or what specific theological way to describe their relationship with God before their profession can be figured out later. But it is not necessary to figure out all those details to follow the commands of the New Testament with regards to family life.

For what its worth, I agree with this statement you made in another thread.

It wouldn't be enough for me to question the continuity of family solidarity in the Covenant.

I agree that the principle of family solidarity continues between Testaments. But I do not see the command to baptize infants, and am unconvinced by the attempts of link circumcision and baptism in a way that would support the infant baptism position.

 

[etexas]

Die post! What I need is a wooden stake!!!!!!!

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Yeah, I do.

You obviously didn't get any of my points.

There, wasn't this a waste of two posts!

Next time, please offer a substantive rebuttal.

Lol. Well, interesting.

Hmm, anyways, I have stated what i stated and yet no one answers me. All I get back is "We've already stated stuff up in our posts" yet no one has answered my questions yet, including in their previous posts.

By the way, brother Paul, I didn't mean to attack you on that, next time i need to watch what i say knowing that the net doesn't fluctuate my voice.

 

[Herald]

Die post! What I need is a wooden stake!!!!!!!

 

[5solasmom]

This is in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt.

Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with church members. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were children who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of covenantal status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.

The issue of covenantal status doesn't have it's basis in these verses or any verses in the NT. They just further substantiate it (for lack of a better term) since there is no indication in either the OT or the NT that God has ceased dealing covenantally with believers and their children.

 

[govols]

Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with church members. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were children who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of covenantal status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.

So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?

Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?

What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?

 

[Magma2]

Going back to Richard Sherratt’s original post for a moment:

We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

Bill the “Baptist in Crisis” and Andrew have basically just repeated this theme. Yet, all seem to agree that bearing the sign of the covenant doesn’t make one a member of the covenant. I agree that the Covenant is with the elect alone. For what it's worth so does the WCF and so does Scripture. Genesis 17:21; “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you [Abraham]. Behold, I have blessed him [Ishmael], and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my Covenant I will establish with Isaac [not with Ishamel]."

So I agree with Bill that “The true children of the covenant are those that are the real Israel.”

However, God commanded the sign of the Covenant be administered to “every male among you” including Ishmael. How do you handle God’s command per Genesis 17?

It appears to me this whole chapter destroys the contention that we “ought to wait until they manifest their election by brining forth the fruits of their election” as unfounded, unbiblical and arguably irrational. The outward administration of the Covenant extends to Ishmael and those of whom God’s Covenant was not established. I think it noteworthy that the command to administer the sign was given prior to God correcting Abraham concerning whom he thought the promise of the Covenant was given. Esau was circumcised along with Jacob, yet God hated the one and loved the other even from the womb. Was Isaac disobedient for circumcising them both? I don't see how? Should he have waited to see which of the twin boys "brought forth the fruits of their election?" I don't see why? So why can’t we conclude that Baptists are simply being disobedient by restricting the administration of the sign of the Covenant to professors only?

I think we all agree that all Israel is not Israel, just as all our children are not necessarily among the promised seed. If we also agree that baptism is the NT analogue of circumcision, then what happened so that the sign is no longer administered to believers and their seed and now all of a sudden to believers only? And, let’s be clear, despite all the talk about the “fruits of election,” you are NOT talking about believers at all, this is pure fantasy, but rather professors, and, I assume, those who lead lives which you approve. But, what makes a Baptist think that they have fewer hypocrites among their ranks (i.e., less chaff) than in paedobaptistic communions– even assuming this is a biblically warranted goal or intent of baptism?

 

[Davidius]

So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?

Yes.

Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?

We've already been over this in this thread, but yes, your children are considered saints. The same word used for saints is used to describe them in 1 Corinthians 7:14.

[bible]1 Cor 7:14[/bible]

What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?

The benefits of the covenant of grace have always been preached to the entire visible Church. Do you think that every adult member of the Ephesian congregation was regenerate? This is the same reason why in the Old Testament the entire nation of Israel could be called the "people of God" while only a few of them were elect and actually partook of the inward blessings of the Covenant of Grace that were described in the scriptures.

 

[Herald]

Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with church members. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were children who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of covenantal status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.

The issue of covenantal status doesn't have it's basis in these verses or any verses in the NT. They just further substantiate it (for lack of a better term) since there is no indication in either the OT or the NT that God has ceased dealing covenantally with believers and their children.

Dawn - To be part of the church children must have come to faith in Christ, not just have been born into a "covenant family." Paul's instruction to children would have included all children capable of understanding the command, but I don't buy the reasoning that all children were part of the visible church. Regeneration is synonymous with becomeing part of the visible church In my humble opinion. But of course I would believe that. I'm a Baptist.

 

[AV1611]

You seem to be treating Genesis 17 as the only verse that paedo-baptists use. The point in question is not whether adult believers (who have never been baptized) should be baptized, but their children as well.

Genesis 17 sets up the idea that the outward manifestation of the Covenant of Grace is given to believers and their children. This theme is found through the whole OT. In the NT we have no clear command that the children of believers were not to be baptized. Also, the way the NT relates to the children of believers we are encouraged that the practice continued even though the administration changed

When I agreed with paedobaptism I recognised that whilst "households" were baptised that was not conclusive proof for infant baptism. Rather in my post above to which you are replying I was trying to get your take on Genesis 17 especially the parts which are part of the Abrahamic Covenant but which are not part of what paedobaptists

I WILL COME BACK AND REPHRASE...SISTER IS MUCKING AROUND AS I AM TYPING

 

[5solasmom]

So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?

Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?

What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?

David answered how I would have.