Quote
Ehud, slanderously states,

I could easily turn this around to defend credobaptism.

"Since Peter being the teacher of "Repent and be baptized, was going to the house of Cornelius knew that infants could not repent and therefore in the household baptisms Peter excluded the infants."
This was already dealt with in my very first post condemning the heretical and in some cases the apostate position of paedo-communion, FV, etc… . (see Calvin below for more).

Quote
Ehud states,

As for Ephesians 6:1, it says that "Children are to obey their parents in the Lord ." If our children are not Christians then how do we teach them to obey us? To teach them the commandments of God apart from the redeeming work of Christ sounds like moralism to me.
So, since Eph. 6:1 is addressed to the church, now you assert that all children of believers are elect against Scripture (Rom. 9:11f) – for otherwise they will not obey? Who is teaching the commandments of God apart from the redeeming work of Christ now? – apparently you are!

You are still thinking that non-partaking is non-participation. Scripture states you should teach your children (Deut. 4:10; Deut. 6:1f; Eph. 6:1-4, etc.). This is not moralism, but biblicism. When children see their parent(s) partake of the elements (i.e. participation, AGAIN compare Heb. 6:1-6, etc.) questions will arise and should arise and “engagement” of “the truth” begins. They are in fact participating though should not be partaking!

Quote
Ehud states,

Children should obey. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. Should we teach our children that they can do the right thing apart from the saving grace of Christ?!?! To tell a 2 year/3 year old that they must obey the parent but that they are not yet able to obey God would seem to bring on a type of schizophrenia. I don't yet have a familly so maybe I am speaking out of turn here.
As I stated in my former post, “However, least ye forget, infants and children are to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1) and they are to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) - part of this instruction being 1 Cor. 11:28, etc....” and now I may add, “Because it is the right thing to do,” not because Ehud says so, but because the Bible says so! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Ehud states,

I guess what I'm asking here is, "What Biblical passage does God command that each person drink four cups of wine?" I'm stumped but it wouldn't be the first time. After 4 glasses of wine I'm not sure I'd be able to talk theology.

Those guys must have been championes.
Oh, excuse me but from your posts I thought you were drunk -- [Linked Image]

As far as Scripture maybe you just need to re-study the LS as given by Christ? Do you know what the Analogy of Scripture is? Do you know how to employ it in your interpretation of the text? Simply, the LS was a Passover meal and seems to have followed the pattern in the Mishnah. In the NT synoptics, we find reference to the First Cup, also known as the Cup of Blessing (Luke 22:17); to the breaking of the matzoh (Luke 22:19); to the Third Cup, the Cup of Redemption (Luke 22:20): to reclining (Luke 22:14): to the charoseth or the maror (Matt. 26:23f), and to the Hallel (Matt. 26:30). And did you ever notice in this text how Jesus allows Judas the opportunity to examine himself before his betrayal –(cf. 1 Cor. 11:28)!

Tolle Lege, tolle lege!

Quote
Ehud attempts to quote Clement of Alexandria, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, and Augustine.
First one must wonder why all of a sudden you love the RCC? Federal vision And Rome Together. I said church history, not heresy!

Second, Clements quote is from a belief that grounds itself in “baptismal regeneration.” Clement of Alexandria makes this very clear – thus refuting your own thesis of LS before regeneration! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Third, you are really reaching with the Constitution of the Holy Apostles. Why didn't quote the part right after your quote which says, "And let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receiveth say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen. (1) And let the thirty-third psalm be said, while the rest are partaking. "The age of the children is not mentioned, but it appears they are old enough to speak and understand (not infants). However I do note that it states, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." I don't have time to reveal all the discrepancies of this document, but one wonders if you just did not read far enough (another sentence) or ... CHA. [search word "baptism" and "children"]

Moreover, while Augustine was right on many things, he still needed to learn much more. Here are some quotes of his "baptismal regeneration" stance,

Quote
How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized. (The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

Note that I speak now both to the faithful and to catechumens. What did I mention in connection with the spittle and the clay? This: the Word became flesh. The catechumens can hear this; but just listening to it does not accomplish that for which they were anointed. Let them hasten to the font if they seek the Light. (The Divine Office, bk., p. 1620, from Fourth Week in Lent, Treatise 44 on John.)
Of course, I could further point out the fact that Augustine was not consistent in his baptismal stance as well,

Quote
Contradicting his above teaching, St. Augustine, in City of God, teaches that an unbaptized catechumen—meaning he has explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity and an explicit desire to be baptized—can be justified if he dies unbaptized and as a martyr.

St. Augustine: “I have in mind those unbaptized persons who die confessing the name of Christ. They receive the forgiveness of their sins as completely as if they had been cleansed by the waters of baptism. For, He who said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ made exceptions in other decisions which are no less universal: ‘Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven’; and again: ‘He who loses his life for my sake will find it.’ So, too, in the psalm: ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.’ For, what could be more precious than a death, which remits all sin and amasses merit? Men, unable to defer their death, who are baptized, and thus depart from life with all their sins forgiven, are not equal in merit to those who have not postponed death, although they could have done so, because they preferred to lose life by confessing Christ than, by denying Him, to gain time for Baptism.” (City of God, Bk. XIII, Chap. 7.)

In another of his works, On Baptism (De baptismo), St. Augustine contradicts himself by teaching baptism is actually administered, invisibly, to worthy catechumens who seemed to die without it.

St. Augustine: “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom has not contempt of religion (the Catholic Religion) but death excludes.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De Baptismo), Bk. IV, Chap. 22.)

RJMI, The Baptism Controversy.
When I speak of Church History I mean that consistent with the Bible, not the errors that abounded. Apparently, you believe everything you read, except the truth, to be the truth and seem unable to properly discern the Scripture apart from a lie (2 Tim. 2:24-26)! I guess we may now assume you believe in “baptismal regeneration,” as well. As Calvin says "human traditions . . . deceive under the appearance of wisdom" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV:x:11).

As Richard Bacon surmises, Calvin was a careful student of ecclesiastical history and was fully cognizant of the fact that paedocommunion had begun to be practiced in approximately 250 A.D. Nevertheless he applauded its discontinuance as being scriptural (Institutes, IV: xvi: 30). Furthermore, Calvin did not cite Popish authorities or traditions for excluding infants from the Lord's Supper, but cited the fact that infants and young children were excluded from the Passover. Calvin stated,

Quote
At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lord’s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup”? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord’s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord’s injunction? “Do this in remembrance of me.” And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them “to show forth the Lord’s death,” of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?
Please take your time and read Bacon carefully. I do not agree with him in areas of his theology however on this issue he is orthodox. However by the time you have another brew and are ready to post again I probably will not be around for some time ... so hopefully someone else will <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> you.


Reformed and Always Reforming,