fredman...Sorry for the tardiness of the response, but better late than never. I guess if Josh T can take 3 or 4 months to respond to our posts, I can take a week or so.
william...No problem. I think JoshT is avoiding a response that will leave him without defense. I never thought this of you.
fredman...I disagree. The Bible is clear that faithful believers are marked by certain characteristic. In fact, that is what the entire work of 1 John is about: How does one know they have eternal life. Your assertion, however, illustrates the principle disagreement between our understanding of the church and the actual members of the New Covenant. It seems to me that you advocate that the visible church family equates membership in the new covenant. I would agree that is the case for the Old Testament, for all circumcised infant males by the fact that they were circumcised were identified with the covenant nation of Israel. But what is revealed with the nature of the New Covenant in the NT, particularly as outlined in Hebrews, is that there is a change in the manner in which the covenant is administered. No longer is it to an entire physical nation of people, composed of both regenerate and unregenerate, but to a spiritual nation of people who have their hearts changed and the law of God written in their minds. Because of that change of emphasis, identification with that covenant is going to be a confession of faith and immersion in believer's baptism. Granted, there will be false confessions and people who are unregenerate identifying with the NC in baptism. The Bible, however, stipulates that such individuals will eventually expose themselves by either leaving the church or teaching false doctrine (1 John 2:19, 2 Peter 2, Jude), all the while refusing to be corrected (Titus 3:9-11), and that the true church should be discerning and alert to such infiltrators.
william...you contradicted yourself. Either you know absolutely who is saved prior to baptism, or it is simply professors baptism, as you cannot know with certainty who is saved. Which is it? I won't deny this dilemma for myself. I agree that the visible church is made up of all professors, but if you are claiming to know who is within the invisible church, please step forward and identify us all by name. Even non-believers exhibit some of these same fruits or we could more easily rid the church of them. I agree that all empty professors will be sorted out and be exposed, but prior to that, I challenge your claim to know this prior to baptism.
fredman...Well, I commend your consistency. Most of the covenant folks stumble at this point when I challenge them as to the nature of children and the Lord's Table. With that in mind, I take it that your children can examine themselves to make sure they are not partaking of the Lord's Table unworthily as Paul warns in 1 Cor. 11:27ff?
william...Are you claiming they cannot? This would require one of two dilemmas for you; 1) that there is some magical age or time when a person becomes accountable and therefore able to partake of the Lords Supper, 2) that my children are incapable of doing so, you can probably do neither.
fredman...I contend that I can know true believers because true belief is known by public confession and faith in Christ alone. You can know a tree by its fruts. I see this as the consistent model through out the NT record of Acts, and what the apostles affirm about the people they write to in their epistles. For instance, Paul told the Thessalonians that they were examples to all those around them. Thus, those in Achaia and Macedonia knew of the faith of the Thessalonians.
william...yet just a few paragraphs ago you claimed some empty professions would be baptised. Yes, the faith of true believers will stand out. There is simply no way you can claim all professors are true believers, however, and these passages don't hold any weight in understanding if those churches also had empty professors within it as well. Another dilemma. The Acts and epistles show several household baptism as well. Could you show, historical, and linguistic references to households being singular person? Also, could you show where the understanding of household covenantship changed?
fredman...Who is erecting strawmen? I said nothing about an age of accountability. Are you arguing that your children are actually saved because they are identified with the visible church?
william...No. I claim my children are part of the visible church and were baptised as part of a household covenant as found repeatedly throughout all of scripture. The age of accountability is the logical end of your beliefs. Children can not be baptised because they cannot make a profession. Since, as you have stated repeatedly now, you tell who is the true church by their professions, and children can not make this, what age can they make this? Please provide scriptural references, please?
fredman...But the New Covenant is a spiritual covenant, made with a spiritual group of people. Your accusation of an age of accountability is fallacious and equally a strawman.
william...then children can become saved and baptised? You have yet to show you can absolutley know every persons heart prior to baptism.
fredman...I am only desiring to be honest with scripture, not accomodating to a particular theological system. The NT model is that those who believe in faith, and confess Christ are saved. You have some logical problems you need to answer as well. By your objection then, you are stating that only baptised children are saved, are you not? In other words, if your objection is correct, and I as a baptist am wrong, then the implication of your objection is that baptism saves those who are the recipients of it. You have a twofold dilemma in my mind: First, you are in danger of advocating baptismal regeneration, and thus fall squarely in the camp of the Lutherans, RCC, and others of their ilk. I can not see how you can begin to establish such a position by scripture, but that is another post.
william...wrong. I am upholding a consistency found throughout scripture. Household baptisms. Please show where this wasn't the understanding of the Apostles? I never claimed baptism saved. In fact, had you read my other posts, Pilgrim addressed this specific question to me and I clarified. I do claim to be raising my children as members of the visible church. The NT model is for believers AND their households. easy to leave that out when attempting to make the text fit your theological system.
fredman...Then second is where exactly does a person's actual faith and belief come into play? For, if your objection is correct, that children cannot be saved unless they are baptised, then do you maintain that their faith some how seals that sign of the baptism? And, how can you escape the accusation of promoting conditional salvation? For if the baptised infant is saved, because he is identified with the NC due to his parent's having him baptised, then is he not essentially loosing his salvation if he grows up to reject the faith and renounce Christ? He was originally in the place of salvation, but now, it appears that he lost it.
william...strawman. Answered ytwo times prior, and the last time in this thread, I do not believe baptism saves.
fredman...I am not strawmanning anything. Look at the actual substance of what I am asking. Perhaps if I rephrase my question: In your position, are only baptised children saved? (Regardless of mode).
william...the holy Scripturea are unclear on this matter. However, I believe God aves whom He will. I denyt you, personally, can sort them out.
fredman...Again, you miss the substance of what I am asking. You may answer that with your response to the previous question. My child is part of the visible church, but that does not equate his salvation, or him actually being in the New Covanant. Membership in a visible church, and membership in the New Covenant are two separate things.
william...exactly...and the NT example of household baptism is what?
