The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question for my credo friends

Hi Pilgrim,<br><br>Just as a clarification, I don't believe those holding to the extremist position on this board would accept the idea that infant baptism places one into the invisible church either. I believe their point would be that the invisible church is the church from God's point of view, which none of us is privy to, and hence the only church that we know and with which we interact in history is the visible church, to which covenant children are admitted and are to be treated as real members of that church along with the others. This does not mean that every member is treated in precisely the same way, but they all have the common denomniator of being reckoned and treated as the people of God, understanding that we cannot know for sure about anyone, not only with children, whether the blessings signified in outward identity are possessed internally. I think I'm one of the extremists, so I felt free to speak on their behalf. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason

The close connection between the Old and New Testament is shown by the number of times the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament. Bagster's Bible gives 889 quotations and allusions; George F. Pentecost gives the number at 885, a few of the allusions given by Bagster's Bible being disputed; The People's New Testament (1891) states there is 845...... Every book of the Old Testament is quoted except Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Esther. I can not remember the exact % or the book that gives the exact %......<br><br>

In regard to infant mortality, we must not look to baptism nor even the familial covenant relationship that an infant has due to the faith of the parent(s). But, salvation is of the Lord and Him alone. Thus says the apostle Paul,

Romans 8:29-30 (ASV) "For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

And Peter, in an abbreviated form says likewise:

Acts 2:39 (ASV) "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."

Thus all who have been predestined to eternal life shall receive it by grace. The Father has predestined, the Son has atoned for, and the Holy Spirit gives faith to one and the same. Thus, those elect infants who die in infancy, to them is given the means to be joined with Christ and received into adoption.

There is no promise to those who belong to the external covenant of salvation, but to those who have been predestinated to eternal life. Therefore, this being of the decretive will of God, which is beyond our comprehension and knowledge, we may not presume which infants have been received into the bosom of Abraham. One thing we know is sure, not one for whom Christ died will be lost. The Judge of all the earth shall do right. (Gen 18:25).

In His Grace,

And thank you as well. That clears a lot up.

I still don't understand how Baptists regard children. Inside the covenant or outside? Part of the visible church or "gonna-be" Christians? I attend a baptist college (odd for an episcopal fellow maybe) with somebody else on this board and we have talked at length about it. I just don't understand the egalitarian principle I suppose.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I still don't understand how Baptists regard children. Inside the covenant or outside? Part of the visible church or "gonna-be" Christians?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>As a baptist, I would say that my child is outside the covenant. That is, if we understand that the covenant that is relevant to us as believers is the New Covenant. The New Covenant is only for those whose hearts have been changed by the work of the spirit and who have been justified by the death of Christ on the cross. <br>Unless you are prepared to either say that baptised infants have some efficacious work done in their heart, or hold to some rigid continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that allows you to view baptised infants who grow up to reject Christ as being able to be removed from the NC, how else would you understand the place of children in relation to the New Covenant?<br><br>Fred

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]For the most part this is true (for Baptists), except that Baptists do attempt to sneak a child back into "part" of the covenant by baby dedications; they ask for God's blessings upon the child, the church's care, and the parent's obedience to raise the child in the nurture of the Lord.... I guess, the theory of non-contradiction is not used here </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I guess I don't see why you think this is such a problem. When Paul writes in Corinthians 7 that the children of a non-believing/believing marriage are sanctified because of the believer, I don't take that to mean that there is an actual conformity to Christlikeness going on. It simply means that the children will be blessed by the relationship they have with the believing parent.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Most (not all) paedos on the other hand, while they do not "yet" see a holy efficacious work done in the hearts of their children, do hold to a historical continuity between the Old and New Testaments (a more correct hermeneutic) that allows their children, as the Scriptures reveal, to be a part of "certain parts" of the covenant (i.e. they cannot be a part of efficacious grace because they are not yet saved, et.al., thus I say "certain parts"), though as demonstrated in Scripture again, "some" may be determined as lost later. Compare all that were circumcised in Israel with "any" that were lost. What child at 8 days old confessed anything?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>That is the hub of the rub, as it were. You have to demonstrate that your particular hermenuetic IS the correct one. I have yet to be compelled to believe that it is. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Thus, the issue comes down to he definition here of what is a covenant? Is it the Baptist way: New Covenant is "only" for those whose hearts have been changed by the work of the spirit and who have been justified by the death of Christ on the cross (yet we sneak our children in the back door of the covenant for some of its blessings) or the biblical way: And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you....</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Where are you getting this sneaking the children in the back door stuff? Paedoes have the same dilemma on their hands as well, because they want to be able to have an excuse to explain why avbaptised infant forfeits the New Covenant when they become an unbelieving adult. Hebrews if pretty clear that the New Covenant in only for those who in Christ. <br><br>Fred<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The New Covenant is only for those whose hearts have been changed by the work of the spirit and who have been justified by the death of Christ on the cross.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Dear Fred,<br><br>The problem is, once you define the covenant in this manner in order to establish the scope of the lawful subjects for the sign of inclusion in that covenant, you cannot possibly administer it. You cannot possibly administer the sign of the covenant to only those who are members of the New Covenant inwardly, because you have not been given the ability to discern the heart. At this juncture, you must back peddle somewhat and say that at least some form of evidence must be given, even if it is not a perfect method, such as a credible profession of faith. But that is in fact what the argument is about, so you cannot assume what must be proven any more than I can. I believe this is clarified further by your comment:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Unless you are prepared to either say that baptised infants have some efficacious work done in their heart, or hold to some rigid continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that allows you to view baptised infants who grow up to reject Christ as being able to be removed from the NC. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well, then you must be prepared to say that baptized hypocrites have some efficacious work done in their hearts, and that this allows you to view baptized hypocrites who later reject the covenant, as being able to be removed from the NC.<br><br>You see, appealing to the efficacious nature of the NC is an irrelevant thesis to this debate. The question is not about whether or not the promised blessings of the NC are only for the elect, that has always been the case, it comes down to whom God has told us to identify with the covenant community, which will always be a mixture of elect and reprobate members. Whom are we to include in this community? From the beginning it has been believers and their household and nothing in Scripture repeals or contradicts that overwhelming testimony.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason

Fred...As a baptist, I would say that my child is outside the covenant.<br><br>William...This is most unfortunate. Those outside the covenant are not saved, and therefore, taking this understanding, all children would perish. I uphold a familial covenant, not an egalitarian one. I can no more know who is trully elect than you can, but can rightfully bring my children into the visible church. This is the dilemma I presented at General Baptist college; what are your children? Gonna-be christians? Wanna-be Christians? In answer, I again return to the fact we don't know who the elect are, but can surely know who is part of the visible Church. My children will be brought up not knowing to be anything else. This is also improper, because your children might indeed be part of the elect. God's grace makes us such, not our profession. Also..."believers baptism" is false. We simply do not know the heart. "Professors baptism" is accurate, and the London Confession of Baptist Faith admits this to be true...<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism<br><br>II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Where are all the Scripture references? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Kalled2Preach,<br><br>Speaking for myself, I do not invest a lot of time giving exposition of Scripture until I can agree with someone as to where the argument is, and then bring to the table any relevant Scripture texts at the appropriate time. Internet forums can be a difficult place to engage in serious exegetical exchange, so I hold off until it is necessary. Sure, we could all do a quick search in our PC software and throw out all kinds of texts (as is so frequently done), but I have rarely found it helpful because there is little explanation as to why those particular texts must say what you or I assert they are saying. For that reason I try to investigate the consistency and/or abritrariness of any one particular system of thought over against another until we come down to the nut of the issue, at which time we must make our appeal to the Scriptures. Unfortunately, it does not get that far frequently enough.<br><br>My $.02,<br><br>~Jason

Jason,<br><br>You bring out some excellent points in your reply to Fred. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/clapping.gif" alt="clapping" title="clapping[/img] I'm just wondering what happened to Fred's post. It no longer appears in the thread.<br><br>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img]<br><br>Truly only God knows those who are written in book of life, circumcised in their heart, and new covenant born again Christians! We are sometimes fooled by their testimony but God is not. He knows His elect.<br><br>Wes

Thank you, Wes. I don't know why you can't see Fred's post, I still can. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]<br><br>Regards brother,<br><br>~Jason

It appears in the list of posts written in the last 24 hours but it doesn't appear in the thread.<br><br>Here's the post I was referring to.<br><br><br>Wes

I see and know what you mean. I think I was just stating an observation and saw this as a good place to state it. And hey, y'all got me almost convinced that I might be wrong on this issue [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/eek.gif" alt="eek" title="eek[/img]

Well, what's holding you back? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>~Jason