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

ROFL, that's funny, but true. Yes, what are your views Kalled2Preach? You haven't had much to say. Not trying to prod or rope ya in, just curious as to what you are thinking.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Creeds are professions. Professions may be either true or empty. It is my opinion, that those passages used to say "believe and be baptised" cannot refer to a creedal profession. They are soteriological passages (generally) and none of us will deny true belief is necessary for salvation. <br><br>Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? <br>Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)<br><br>I think this passage shows this. These people are asking what they must do to be saved, not baptised. Indeed, repentance and true belief are necessary for salvation, but we know the Apostles also baptised those who made professions that seemed to be empty.<br><br>Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. <br>Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: <br>Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: <br>Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) <br>Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. <br>Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, <br>Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. <br>Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. <br>Act 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. <br>Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. <br>Act 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. (KJV)<br><br>If we look at the London Confession of Baptist Faith, we can see the same.<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.[4]<br>4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8<br><br>Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJV)<br><br>Same situation here. The belief part is soteriological, not a prerequisite for baptism. While the examples in the NT of baptism all followed this general idea, several families and households were baptised and no mention is made of this being the case for those baptised in this manner. The two passages in question also give us the OT understanding of who is to be baptised, those who believe, and their families and households. We cannot make belief a prerequisite, because the Bible simply does not mandate this. It doesn't say, 'believe THEN be baptised". That would be more instructional as to the prerequisite of baptism. But it says, "believe AND be baptised", both being a prerequisite for salvation. The familial covenant was simply never removed for an egalitarian view. I agree with Saint Peter when he said,<br><br>Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. <br>Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. <br><br>That's my $.02, and why I became a paedo-baptist within a week of becoming reformed.<br><br>Disclaimer: My understanding of baptism is taken from the 39 Articles of Religion, and the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, along with the scriptures.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br><br><br><br><br>

Honestly, when I wrote that I was almost convinced, I was almost convinced. Now I am like 100% that my ideas were off. It started with my question on a previous post and that passage I quoted. I'll put it again so you don't have to go and look at the post again.<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]I baptize you with water to show that you have repented, but the one who will come after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. He is much greater than I am; and I am not good enough even to carry his sandals. He has his winnowing shovel with him to thresh out all the grain. He will gather his wheat into his barn, but he will burn the chaff in a fire that never goes out.</font color=blue> (Matthew 3:11-12 Good News Bible)</blockquote><br>And it hit me like a ton of bricks. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] Scripture never says not to. And Scripture is pretty clear that it most likely was done. And church fathers affirmed that it had been done as long as they can remember. And in a General Baptist Heritage class, I learned that "believer's baptism", from what I gathered, came later as a protest thing or something. <br><br>I am not completely Paedo, but I am convinced that "believer's baptism" has some really big issues to be worked out. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/dizzy.gif" alt="dizzy" title="dizzy[/img] <br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But it says, "believe AND be baptised", both being a prerequisite for salvation.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Now you have my curiosity peeked! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] What do you mean that baptism is a "prerequisite for salvation." This phrase connotes that salvation is unobtainable without having undergone baptism. Is this what you believe?<br><br>In His Grace,

I wanted to simply post a comment about the version you apparently are using; "The Good News Bible". I have no idea if you are relying upon this version as a primary source or not. But I would have you seriously consider tossing that thing in the proverbial "Circular File" as it is terribly inaccurate. As a comparison, here is what how the ASV (American Standard Version 1901) translates that same passage,

Matthew 3:11-12 (ASV) I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.

As you will clearly see there is a stark difference between the GNB's translation: I baptize you with water [color:red]to show that you have repented and the ASV, which is about as close to a word-for-word translation of the Greek as you are going to get: baptize you in water [color:red]unto repentance. The GNB is saying that baptism is "proof" of genuine repentance, which is utterly ridiculous and contrary to many other texts. So...... just a word to the wise! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]

In His Grace,

No. I hoped my disclaimer would have clarified this. I was just attempting to show that the passages used are not ionstructional to baptismal prerequisites, but are soteriological passages. <br><br>The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism<br><br>V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated. <br><br>I would think that my understanding is probably extremely close to the Presbyterian understanding.<br><br>The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII<br>Of Baptism<br><br>VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>

I was noticing that myself after I used that version on that passage. I just picked it for readability but in looking back at it on my own, I wonder what motive they were pushing there. I deffinitely take your advice though and like it. Thank you. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thumbup.gif" alt="thumbup" title="thumbup[/img]

Marie,<br><br>Even if we were to improve upon the argument by saying that the New Covenant is made only with believers and that, therefore, we should try to "ensure" that only professing believers are baptized, the argument is still invalid. The reason being, both the old and new covenants were made strictly with the elect! Baptists insist that the Old Covenant was made with both believers and unbelievers and that the New Covenant is made only with believers. From this position they argue further that the sign of the Old Covenant (as opposed to the New) was to be administered to all who were included in it, both believers and unbelievers.... However, if you will remember Abraham desired that his son Ishmael would live and walk before God -- i.e., be in covenant with God. God, however, said NO; God went on to say that His covenant would be established with Isaac and NOT Ishmael. Romans nine underscores this very point as well. The point is, the covenant was always established only with the true seed in Christ, the elect, (Romans 9; Galatians 3), yet the household of any professing believer was to be numbered among the people of God under the old economy. So you see, the covenant although made strictly with the elect in the Old, was still to be *administered* to both the those who professed faith (e.g. Abraham) and those who were too young to profess faith whether elect (Isaac) or not (Ishmael). So on what ground is this precedence to be broken?<br><br>In sum, Baptists will argue that the covenant was established with both the elect and non-elect in the O.T., and with only the elect in the New. Therefore, they say, the sign of the covenant was to be administered to both professing believers and their offspring in the Old, and only to those who profess faith in the New. Given the Baptists starting point their conclusion would seem reasonable. The problem with the argument is not so much in its form, but rather in the assumptions that are pumped into the equation. Where Baptists go wrong is that they fail to realize that the ONE covenant of grace is made with Christ -- and in Him the elect. From there it is easy to establish the Old Testament precedent that those who have not professed faith are to receive the mark of entrance into the covenant -- even though they may never come to faith or profess faith.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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 ca surely know who is part of the visible Church. My cbildren will be brought up not knowing to be anything else.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>My post to Jason goes into a more detailed response. Suffice it to say, as I mention in my other post, I draw a sharp distinction between unknowingly allowing a hypocrite reprobate into baptism and membership, rather than willing allowing it when the Bible doesn't warrant it. I take it that you allow your children to partake in the Lord's table as well? If not, why?<br>It seems as though you assume that as a baptist I don't speak to my son about salvation or expose him to godliness or the things of the church? Of course I do. My children will be brought up knowing nothing else as well. The issue is whether or not they are truly members of Christ's New Covenant. That is something God does with his saving grace. Why you think your questions posed to the General Baptist college folks is a dilemma is beyond me. I pray for my son, and ask God to save him like I would any other unsaved person outside the covenant. The difference is that I get a hands on opportunity to raise my boy in the way God would have him to go. He in return reaps the benefit of hearing the gospel, being held accountable to truth, knowing God's way from the world and being protected from lots of foolishness that would otherwise harden him in sin. Whether or not he actually is saved is up to the Lord. <br>Now, you made one comment in your response I found interesting. You stated that those children outside the covenant are not saved, and that would mean that all children would perish. What do you base this upon? Are only Christian children saved? Then, are only sprinkled children saved? Or would the children of baptists, who unwittingly refuse to sprinkle their children, due to their rejection of Reformed, covenantal hermeneutics, perish also? <br><br>Fred<br>

<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The ability, or lack there of, to discern the heart is key. I believe there is a big difference with the Baptist unknowingly letting a hypocrite into a church through baptism, than a paedo willing allowing an unregenerate into the covenant by sprinkling. The issue, as you state, is one of knowing the heart, and the only thing that is visible is a person's confession and changed life conforming to Christ. <br><br>In addition, I desire to be textual. Both circumcision and baptism are ordinances that are connected to justifying faith, something that has mental assent, acting in response to grace, believing upon an actual object, that being Christ. This is something infants just cannot do. Even the Lutherans I have debated elsewhere recognize this problem, and in order to maintain their paedobaptism, introduce the notion of an infant having saving faith, either by proxy from his or her parents, or actual saving faith that is waiting to bud forth when a child can communicate. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Like I stated above, I have no problem with that, because we do not know the heart. My duty has a Christian is to model scripture. Of course, the nature of hermeneutics plays a rather extensive role in all of this as Joe has pointed out, so our debate really lies there. Be that as it may, I find it more problematic to import onto baptism and the Lord's table some efficacious means of grace that the Bible doesn't. I find it even more problematic to engage in an ecclesiastical system that willing allows unregenerates to partake in the NC, just to maintain the continuity of a favored theology. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I had just a moment to scan over your reply on Friday, along with another one from William before I had to leave for the day to take care of some family business. Over the weekend, I glanced over the various handful of texts in Acts that speak about believers and their households. The ones that seem to be key (I would imagine there may be more that I have overlooked), such as Acts 10;44-48; 11:16-17; 16:31,32,34; 18:8, all record that those in the household believed (exercised mental assent) and that the recipients in the household heard, understood, believed and were baptised. How can an infant do this? Moreover, the Holy Spirit fell upon all of Cornelius's house. Are we to say that any infants present spoke in tongues and manifested the gifts of the spirit? <br>On the contrary, I believe what the Bible teaches in regards to the efficacious nature of the NC is relevant, because those who are in the NC have a changed heart and Christ is their mediator. Granted, the NT speaks of false teachers, hypocrites and reprobates that are identified with God's elect, but the writers of scripture are clear to point out their scandalous character in relation to those who are truly apart of the NC. <br>Furthermore, your idea of those whom God has told us to identify with the covenant community is more of an import from the OT due to your system of theological continuity. It really is an argument from inference by reading into the "believers and their household" passages the possibility of infants. The text doesn't say either way whether or not infants were present, but there is enough surrounding information in the record to draw the proper conclusion that those in the household were hearing, believing and getting baptised. To me, that doesn't look to be infants. <br><br>Fred

Fred,<br><br>I don't believe you really engaged at the core of the debate, but merely repeated much of what I addressed in my first post. The fact that you can find examples that agree with your position does not grant preference to your position over mine if I can just as easily account for those examples.<br><br>You have yet to provide an argument as to why we should change the way in which covenant children are identified. Anytime you make an appeal to our ignorance regarding the saving faith in a child you merely bring an irrelevant thesis to the table, unless you can prove that knowledge of saving faith in a person is the only means of entrance into the visible community of God's people. Give us a reason to believe that God is acting differently than He has all along. To cite examples that agree with your position when they also agree in perfect harmony with our position is no argument for me to change my position.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I find it more problematic to import onto baptism and the Lord's table some efficacious means of grace that the Bible doesn't.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And where have I (or we) done this?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I find it even more problematic to engage in an ecclesiastical system that willing allows unregenerates to partake in the NC, just to maintain the continuity of a favored theology.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I would dispute this notion of our system "willingly" allowing unregenerate people into the church. I thought you said we could not read the heart? Or did you mean that we could not read the hearts of adults, but we can read the hearts of infants? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] Or perhaps you know that every single child born into a covenant home is unregenerate at the time of his baptism? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shocked.gif" alt="shocked" title="shocked[/img]<br><br>But that is all really beside the issue here, since your contempt is more with God than us. Ironically, you mentioned that circumcision was the sign of faith in the Old Testament, and yet God commanded that very sign to be applied to unregenerate children! Would it not have been the case that Abraham would have been disobeying God if he did not have Ishmael circumcised, and yet we know that God did not establish his covenant with Ishmael! Would not Isaac have been disobedient had he not given the sign of the covenant to Esau, and yet before they were even born Esau was foretold to be a reprobate child? God commanded the sign of identity to be given even to unregenerate children of the covenant, and more poignantly, God held them accountable to the standards of that relationship, calling them covenant breakers when they disobeyed Him. If the sign never really belonged to them, should we not expect that God would simply dismiss the sign as having been an "oops."<br><br>Furthermore, I suggest that you read over the household baptisms a little more closely. They do not "all" record the faith of those who were baptized. In any event, it is unnecessary for me to prove the baptism of infants in those texts for the redemption of my position. I have over 4000 years of history prior to those narratives granting covenant identity to the children of God's people. Even if I were to grant the idea that the households only included people who were at the age of accountability and only they were baptized, that agrees perfectly with my paedobaptistic system. We don't deny believers baptism, we deny believers-only baptism, which position you have assumed in those texts without first proving your case. Can you provide one example in the New Testament of a child growing up to "an age of accountability" and only then being baptized? Not to mention the fact that any record of baptizing households, when it was only those of faith who were baptized, would be completely irrelevant information if the idea of the household had no significance. Why did Luke not simply record for us that those who believed were baptized like on the day of Pentecost? Why even bring up the point of household baptisms if there was not some significance to the idea? My point is, the household baptisms make perfect sense when you interpret them in light of paedobaptism, but become superfluous in the credobaptistic system.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Furthermore, your idea of those whom God has told us to identify with the covenant community is more of an import from the OT due to your system of theological continuity. It really is an argument from inference by reading into the "believers and their household" passages the possibility of infants.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well, you are the one who brought up the household baptisms, not I. I do not employ them as a starting point to prove the position, it is merely corroborative evidence that support the deep rooted practice of redemptive history. It is not I who needs to show a new principle at work in the NT. I would merely show that we see examples in the NT of exactly what we would expect to see from a covenantal perspective, in the household baptism passages as well as others. As far as importing ideas from the Old Testament, I feel quite comfortable doing so as this was the hermeneutic of Jesus Himself. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Again, you haven't shown that you can know who is trully in the invisible Church. <br><br>fredman..."Suffice it to say, as I mention in my other post, I draw a sharp distinction between unknowingly allowing a hypocrite reprobate into baptism and membership, rather than willing allowing it when the Bible doesn't warrant it. I take it that you allow your children to partake in the Lord's table as well? If not, why?"<br><br>Impossible, because you don't know, once again, who is trully saved. The baptists baptise as many unbelievers as paedo=baptists do. At least the baptists at my school admit this. Yes, my children partake of the Lord's supper.<br><br>fredman..."It seems as though you assume that as a baptist I don't speak to my son about salvation or expose him to godliness or the things of the church? Of course I do. My children will be brought up knowing nothing else as well. The issue is whether or not they are truly members of Christ's New Covenant. That is something God does with his saving grace."<br><br>Therein lies your dilemma, which has been posed repeatedly and not one baptist has overcome. Nobody here, myself included, has made the argument you strawmanned. We are saved by grace. But you don't know who is saved. Your post wreaks of exclusivism based upon your desire to baptise only true believers, which you simply do not and cannot know. Expose your children? Then you admit they cannot be saved until the unscriptural age of accountability? <br><br>fredman..."The difference is that I get a hands on opportunity to raise my boy in the way God would have him to go. He in return reaps the benefit of hearing the gospel, being held accountable to truth, knowing God's way from the world and being protected from lots of foolishness that would otherwise harden him in sin. Whether or not he actually is saved is up to the Lord."<br><br>This was never an issue. I will also raise my children likewise, but also as members of the visible church. What is an issue is who is a member of the visible church, and have recieved the covenant sign. Baptist children are not, and according to you, cannot be saved until they can save themselves through profession at the magic age not founf in Holy Scripture.<br><br>fredman..."You stated that those children outside the covenant are not saved, and that would mean that all children would perish. What do you base this upon? Are only Christian children saved? Then, are only sprinkled children saved? Or would the children of baptists, who unwittingly refuse to sprinkle their children, due to their rejection of Reformed, covenantal hermeneutics, perish also?"<br><br>Let's do this one questionn at a time...<br><br>fredman..."You stated that those children outside the covenant are not saved, and that would mean that all children would perish."<br><br>I said this is the end of baptist logic. This is the logical end of your beliefs. Baptism is only for those saved, and since children cannot be baptised, children cannot be saved. Or, the London Confession has it wrong;<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism<br><br>I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]<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.[4]<br><br>Accordingly, children cannot be part of section 1, because they cannot make sound professions, as section 2 deems necessary.<br><br>fredman..."Are only Christian children saved?"<br><br>According to you, no children are saved. If they are, they should recieve the sign accompanying such, baptism as you uphold it. Your theology becomes contradivtory here. If children are part of section 1 of the LBC, then they should be baptised as part of the invisible church. Unfortunately, they cannot do section 2 until you or a church decides on an unscriptural age of understanding. Salvation is of the Lord. I don't know who is saved. But I know who is part of the visible church.<br><br>fredman...Then, are only sprinkled children saved? <br><br>We don't sprinkle, so I hope not. Please quit strawmanning my position. I'm ecumenical as to mode.<br><br>fredman...Or would the children of baptists, who unwittingly refuse to sprinkle their children, due to their rejection of Reformed, covenantal hermeneutics, perish also?"<br><br>Not only a rejection of sound Scriptural interpretation, but of historical theology. Are your children part of the visible church?<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br><br>

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.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, you haven't shown that you can know who is trully in the invisible Church.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Yes, my children partake of the Lord's supper.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Therein lies your dilemma, which has been posed repeatedly and not one baptist has overcome. Nobody here, myself included, has made the argument you strawmanned. We are saved by grace. But you don't know who is saved. Your post wreaks of exclusivism based upon your desire to baptise only true believers, which you simply do not and cannot know. </font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>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. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Expose your children? Then you admit they cannot be saved until the unscriptural age of accountability?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This was never an issue. I will also raise my children likewise, but also as members of the visible church. What is an issue is who is a member of the visible church, and have recieved the covenant sign. Baptist children are not, and according to you, cannot be saved until they can save themselves through profession at the magic age not founf in Holy Scripture.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I said this is the end of baptist logic. This is the logical end of your beliefs. Baptism is only for those saved, and since children cannot be baptised, children cannot be saved.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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. <br>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.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] According to you, no children are saved. If they are, they should recieve the sign accompanying such, baptism as you uphold it. Your theology becomes contradivtory here. If children are part of section 1 of the LBC, then they should be baptised as part of the invisible church. Unfortunately, they cannot do section 2 until you or a church decides on an unscriptural age of understanding. Salvation is of the Lord. I don't know who is saved. But I know who is part of the visible church.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Again, this is a clear example of our principle disagreement. From where I am sitting, it looks as though you are equating New Covenant membership with the visible church. I don't believe the two are compatible like you suggest. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]We don't sprinkle, so I hope not. Please quit strawmanning my position. I'm ecumenical as to mode.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Not only a rejection of sound Scriptural interpretation, but of historical theology. Are your children part of the visible church?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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.<br><br>Fred<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Give us a reason to believe that God is acting differently than He has all along. To cite examples that agree with your position when they also agree in perfect harmony with our position is no argument for me to change my position.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Like I told William in my other post, the New Covenant is made with a spiritual people who have hearts changed by God. When I read Hebrews 8, I can't conclude anything other than that. This is not what took place in the OT. There the covenant was made with the entire nation of Israel regardless of saving belief or not. The covenant stipulated actual physical blessings and actual physical cursings for compliance. The NC, as I read my NT, is made solely with a people who are spiritually saved. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I find it more problematic to import onto baptism and the Lord's table some efficacious means of grace that the Bible doesn't.<br><br>And where have I (or we) done this?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>You personally may not have implied efficacious means for baptism, but other posters definitely seem to believe this. Either that, or they are not being clear, or I am totally misreading what they are writing.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would dispute this notion of our system "willingly" allowing unregenerate people into the church. I thought you said we could not read the heart? Or did you mean that we could not read the hearts of adults, but we can read the hearts of infants? Or perhaps you know that every single child born into a covenant home is unregenerate at the time of his baptism?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I am unclear as to what you mean with your last question. Are you saying that I can't know if a child is born into a covenant home as unregenerate? Maybe I am misreading you, but are saying that I child can be born regenerate? Or that somehow at his or her baptism, they could be regenerated? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But that is all really beside the issue here, since your contempt is more with God than us.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This is not only an unnecessary slur, but one that is uncalled for.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Ironically, you mentioned that circumcision was the sign of faith in the Old Testament, and yet God commanded that very sign to be applied to unregenerate children!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>If I stated that circumcision was the sign of faith in the OT, then I need to recarify what I meant. In Romans 4, Paul points out that Abraham was circumcised AFTER he believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Circumcision was a sign of faith in that Abraham already had the faith in God's promise, and it was given as a mark identifying Abraham and his descendants with the covenant God made with him. Hence the reason why the fuller, true nature of saving faith, faith in Christ, would have the identifying sign, baptism, following saving faith.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Would it not have been the case that Abraham would have been disobeying God if he did not have Ishmael circumcised, and yet we know that God did not establish his covenant with Ishmael! Would not Isaac have been disobedient had he not given the sign of the covenant to Esau, and yet before they were even born Esau was foretold to be a reprobate child? God commanded the sign of identity to be given even to unregenerate children of the covenant, and more poignantly, God held them accountable to the standards of that relationship, calling them covenant breakers when they disobeyed Him. If the sign never really belonged to them, should we not expect that God would simply dismiss the sign as having been an "oops."</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>All of that is true under the Old Covenant. I have no disagreement with that. But the sign of those identified with the New Covenant, only those whose hearts have been changed, is baptism, because they are under just that: a New Covenant. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Furthermore, I suggest that you read over the household baptisms a little more closely. They do not "all" record the faith of those who were baptized. In any event, it is unnecessary for me to prove the baptism of infants in those texts for the redemption of my position.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>But the vast majority of them do. Just because the one pertaining to Lydia, for instance, doesn't record the saving faith of her household (That by the way would probably only contain her immediate servants seeing that she was more than likely a femminist business woman who would not have any children) does not trump the majority of passages that state that the recipients of baptism believe the gospel. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I have over 4000 years of history prior to those narratives granting covenant identity to the children of God's people. Even if I were to grant the idea that the households only included people who were at the age of accountability and only they were baptized, that agrees perfectly with my paedobaptistic system.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I won't discount the history prior to those narratives, but that is where we depart our ways in understanding the adminstration of the covenant sign. The NC changed all of that, but that is where you maintain a rigid continuity, and I maintain proper discontinuity distinctions when they are warranted.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] We don't deny believers baptism, we deny believers-only baptism, which position you have assumed in those texts without first proving your case. Can you provide one example in the New Testament of a child growing up to "an age of accountability" and only then being baptized?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The "age of accountability" accusation is a red herring to draw us away from the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is that the NT ONLY presents individuals being baptised who have confessed faith in Christ. To understand it any other way, ie, the application to infants, is reading the text with a particular theological slant. In this case, with the glasses of rigid continuity, that doesn't allow for a different, or better stated, newer, application of the covenant ordinances. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As far as importing ideas from the Old Testament, I feel quite comfortable doing so as this was the hermeneutic of Jesus Himself.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>This again illustrates the differences in the way we approach the scripture. I believe the OT is to be read in light of the fuller revelation, and the hermenuetic of Christ is to read the OT in light of who he was and what he was going to do. Is there anything new about the new testament in your estimation? Can you give me an example of Christ importing ideas from the OT, in which he doesn't interpret them inlight of who he was as the true and final word of God who is appointed heirs of all things according to Hebrews 1:1,2? <br><br>Fred<br>