Hi Antikathistas, I wonder if you would care to substantiate that statement that God has usually saved people in lines of generations? It does not seem to ring very true in the Scriptures. The children of Eli (1Sam 2:12), Samuel (1Sam 8:3), David (2Sam 13), Jehoshaphat (2Kings 8:16-18), Hezekiah (2Chron 33:2), Josiah (2Chron 36:5) do not seem to have inherited their fathers' piety.
Nor did it hold true in Geneva after the Reformation. In the mid-18th Century, the French philosopher, Rouseau wrote;
'It is asked of the ministers of the church of Geneva if Jesus Christ be God. They dare not answer. It is asked if He were a mere man. They are embarrassed and will not say they think so. ....... Oh! Genevans, these Gentlemen, your ministers, in truth are very singular people! They do not know what they believe, or what they do not believe. They do not even know what they would wish to appear to believe. Their only manner of establishing their faith is, to attack the faith of others.' (sounds a bit like the Church of England today! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />)
And who is it who is reputed to have been the first to have endorsed Unitarianism in Geneva? None other than the son of the great Francis Turretine, when he was Professor of Theology. Not much sign of 'generational salvation' there either!
Reference household baptisms, my wife and I were converted at much the same time and were (re-)baptized together. Had our children been a little older they might have been converted and baptized with us. In times of revival it has not been uncommon for whole families to be converted within just a few days of each other. The 1st Century AD was nothing if not a revival.
Well Fred would be right except for one very serious error. Paul used the O.C. to explain the new! Even Hebrews shows the fulfilling of the O.C. in the New. Look at Hebrews 11, where does the author begin on the issue of "faith?" Thus, the proper hermeneutic is to use the Old to explain the New—a principle taught in every seminary I know of (most of them Baptist), except when it comes to baptism & eschatology—interesting!
Dispensationalism basically looks at the Covenants and see them as individual trees. Each tree then may have some of the other items of the other covenants en-grafted in on a case by case basis, but the covenants themselves are separate. The trees grow until they reach their full scope of purpose and then are replaced with another.
Covenant theology sees ONE tree that has different things added to it for further revelation from era to era (w/epochal adjustments). Covenant theology sees more of a continuity in the covenants then does the dispensationist. Covenant theology sees God revealing His master plan more and more throughout the ages as opposed to the dispensationist who sees it constantly being replaced. For the paedo, the progression of the Covenant in time begins in the Old Testament and ends up in its fulfillment (not replacement) in the New Testament—a proper hermeneutic.
Thus, the hermeneutics of the camps are not equivalent and they end up with different views not only in baptism, but eschatology, et. al. You can begin with the middle of the book and look backward and you will most always end up credo or you can begin at the beginning of the book and you will almost always end up paedo. So, I guess it boils down to how you learn to read. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />
When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold).
I agree.....and this is where I desired PJ to go with it. But, the NT is very strict here not JUST saying that salvation came to an individual, but that it came to his house. IMHO this is for a specific reason to reveal that the covenant came to the house, not just the individual. As you said, not that everyone in the house is saved--that would be utter nonsense, but that certain blessing do come upon the household. What blessings IMHO are clearly seen in the OT/NT.
"The New is the Old concealed The Old is the New revealed.”
Hey, brother, shouldn't that be: "The Old is the New concealed The New is the Old revealed.”
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
I want to think a little on what you said before commenting. But, I will say this. Dr. Fred Malone believes in CT, he is diametrically opposed to Dispensationalism. He is a member of Founders, I am sure you have heard of them. Pilgrim speaks quite highly of them. www.founders.org
I use to be in Founder's Conference of the SBC myself. Roger Nicole, Th.D., Ph.D., D.D .(Contributing Editor to the Founders Journal), lays out a similar argument, but agrees with my assessment of a proper hermetical principle. Nichole uses a little phrase that "it is grace, not race" in a debate he had with R.C. Sproul on the issue. Though one may claim to believe in Covenant Theology different individuals believe in different continuities of it...Fred makes the first tree the NT Tree and then adds branches of the OT as he sees fit in his hermeneutic. Here he is dispensational not covenantal.
The only "change" I would make in your post is that I would replace "often" with "usually" or even "normally." God has usually saved people in the lines of generations.
I would certainly agree with that change. Of course there are many exceptions which could be sighted but all we need to do is follow the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 to see that the Lord does keep his promises working through the offspring of Abraham.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
The case of Lydia’s household is inconclusive. There is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position. That of course doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no infants in the household, but if I was a paedobaptist, I don’t think I would use this passage to support my case.
Unfortunately you missed my point. What I wrote was, "Actually not all household baptisms recorded in the Bible tell us who were included nor whether faith was present in all the members of the household. If it were that cut and dried there would be no discussion.
Acts 16: 11:14,15 tells about a certain woman named Lydia who believed. We read that she and her household were baptised, but it doesn't tell us who her family members included nor if they had faith." My comments were in response to Prestor's suggestion that in each of these households all the members had faith. Unfortunately we can't substantiate that from the limited information we have. I tend to agree with Pilgrim's quote: "When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold)."
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Acts 2:39 says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Peter proclaims that salvation through God's Messiah is promised to the Jews, to their children, and to all those who are far off (i.e., the Gentiles, Eph. 2:11-13). Here again is the message of Acts - the gospel is for Jews and Gentiles. Even though only those present may have received baptism that day the promise extended to their children and beyond.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Reference household baptisms, my wife and I were converted at much the same time and were (re-)baptized together. Had our children been a little older they might have been converted and baptized with us. In times of revival it has not been uncommon for whole families to be converted within just a few days of each other. The 1st Century AD was nothing if not a revival.
That's some serious special pleading for the term OIKOS. I also don't see any Biblical evidence that any of these household conversions took "days", and this certainly wasn't the norm, again. I'll ask you, is your entire household christian? Or were your infants "clean slates"?
How would a first century A.D. Jew undersand the passage? I somehow don't see any clarification, anywhere, in scripture changing this understanding of how children are included. To a Jewish person, household meant something. Notice how Peter compares the old to the new, yet still doesn't mention this discontinuity? Interesting to me. I have read an argument from silence, but can't remember it exactly.
The argument from silence is powerful. The Jews were use to a salvation for them and their family. When they crossed over the line to Christianity one would expect to see a great argument somewhere in Scripture that their children were no longer in the covenant, if they were under the credo view. Since, no argument exists in Scripture the argument from silence states that the children must still be in the covenant and thus a paedo view existed in their day. There is thus a continuity in the covenant.
Hello AF, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but neither I nor my wife come from a Christian background. We hope prayerfully for the conversion of our children, knowing that that the New Birth is 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'. However, salvation could certainly be said to have come to our house when we were converted.
The biblical pattern is clearly laid out in Acts 16:25ff. The jailor is saved, he brings Paul and Silas back to his house where they preach the Gospel to his 'oikos' who also come to faith (v34). These things do happen in times of revival. Now suppose that this man had had a 16 year-old son who was a devout follower of the god, Mithras and refused to become a Christian. Are you suggesting that he would have been held down, kicking and screaming, while Paul baptized him, and that the jailor would then have, 'rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household'? I don't think so.
Wes mentioned the genealogy of Matt 1 as a 'godly descent'. It will surely be enough to note that Rehoboam (v7), Joram (v8), Ahaz (v9) and Manasseh (v10) are all included. Also, what evidence is there that, say, Eliud (v15) was a godly man?
I find myself in complete agreement with you when you state:
Quote
the New Birth is 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'.
I also find it relevant that you bring up the issue of the nature of revival in the context of the scriptural references to the conversion and, subsequent, (subseqent seems important to me for some reason) baptisms.
I also appreciate your pointing out the error of salvation normally or usually in generational lines. Yes, the Lord does honor His promises to hear the prayers and honor the efforts of parents who bring their children up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord", but He does it, like all else he does, SOVEREIGNLY. Essau and Jacob, it seems to me should be our teacher, as I believe it was meant to be, in this matter.
I also appreciate your pointing out the error of salvation normally or usually in generational lines. Yes, the Lord does honor His promises to hear the prayers and honor the efforts of parents who bring their children up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord", but He does it, like all else he does, SOVEREIGNLY. Essau and Jacob, it seems to me should be our teacher, as I believe it was meant to be, in this matter.
After reading your comments and Steve's it apprears you believe children that come from a Christian household who trust the Lord for their salvation are the exception rather than the norm. Certainly many exceptions could be sighted but I wouldn't go to that extreme. This makes me wonder how many of the members who participate on this discussion board came to the Lord from unbelieving families.
I think this can have an impact of one's view. For example I happen to believe that my paternal Grandparents loved the Lord, my parents loved the Lord, my children love the Lord and recently my oldest grandchild made her public profession of faith declaring her love for the Lord. Each of these lives as I've observed them has given evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. As I've said before there are many exceptions to this rule but I believe it is God's primary plan to work within covenant households. His promises were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Isaac was Abraham's child of promise and even today I believe we need to look at our children in this way. Trusting that God will bring our children to repentance and faith even as He has us by His marvelous grace.
Certainly this is not a matter of the will of man nor of the flesh but when God is active in a person's life the evidences of God's grace will have impact on all those who grow up in that household. This provides a means of grace whereby the children are exposed to the gospel and discipleship through a believing parent. This doesn't insure the children's salvation but it is a means the Spirit uses along with a families participation in the life of the church. As you know the gospel is the power of God to salvation and He makes this known through the foolishness of preaching. We bring our children under this teaching and pray that the Spirit will work in their hearts. Praise God He does!
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
