Children that have the sign of the covenant

[Steve Owen]

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Scott,
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that's circumcision, not baptism.
There is no command in the Bible to baptize infants.

How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?

The Holy Spirit foretold the coming of the New Covenant through Jeremiah. It was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 ).

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Scott,
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that's circumcision, not baptism.
There is no command in the Bible to baptize infants.

How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?

The Holy Spirit foretold the coming of the New Covenant through Jeremiah. It was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 ).

Martin

Martin,
The command is to place the sign; that sign then was circumcision, today it is baptism.

Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

As far as your understanding of the Jer passage:
Inaugerated or consumated?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Steve Owen]

Martin,
The command is to place the sign; that sign then was circumcision, today it is baptism.

So show me the command to baptize infants today.

Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

Well, you'd better carry on circumcising infants then because there's no command to do anything else to them.

As far as your understanding of the Jer passage:
Inaugerated or consumated?

Inaugurated. Jer 31:31ff is clearly placed in the future.

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

So show me the command to baptize infants today.

The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.

Inaugurated. Jer 31:31ff is clearly placed in the future.

Martin

and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???




[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Mocha]

Originally posted by Martin
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.

Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?

Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship". This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.

In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.

Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.

I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.

Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.

Mike

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mike,
Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Mocha

Originally posted by Martin
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.

Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?

Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship". This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.

In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.

Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.

I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.

Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.

Mike

Refreshing to see somebody finds some challenges here and wants to address them.

I've honestly never encountered a credo-Baptist that approached this issue from the regulative principle. It actually shocked me and I'm not easily shocked.

Frankly, the silence on the subject would lead, in covenantal terms, to the conclusion that baptism of infants would occur unless Christ and His Apostles took positive steps to prevent the "abuse".

Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)

Later, we read letters of Apostles dealing with all sorts of abuses including what? Circumcision! The dang Judaizers are trying to get Gentiles circumcized. One would suppose that Paul would have to deal with the perversion that these dang Judaizers are telling the Gentiles to baptize and circumcize their children and Paul would correct that. Oh, but wait, perhaps none of the Galatian households had children. That would explain that problem after all.

Leaving that heresy aside, why wouldn't the Apostles have to write an Epistle to "fix" the Jews understanding of Covenant? After all, for 2000 years they've gotten used to this silly idea of family solidarity in belief - that God saves them and their children. The sign of the Covenant expands to include not only Jews but Gentiles, not only men but women, but wait! It contracts to not include children! Hold on Jewish believers! Don't baptize your children!

Come on folks. Can't you feel the folly in this regulative principle argument? It reminds me of the Church of Christ that doesn't allow instrumental music because it's not reiterated by some Apostle in the New Testament.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Mocha

Originally posted by Martin
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.

Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?

Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship". This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.

In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.

Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.

I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.

Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.

Mike

Refreshing to see somebody finds some challenges here and wants to address them.

I've honestly never encountered a credo-Baptist that approached this issue from the regulative principle. It actually shocked me and I'm not easily shocked.

Frankly, the silence on the subject would lead, in covenantal terms, to the conclusion that baptism of infants would occur unless Christ and His Apostles took positive steps to prevent the "abuse".

Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)

Later, we read letters of Apostles dealing with all sorts of abuses including what? Circumcision! The dang Judaizers are trying to get Gentiles circumcized. One would suppose that Paul would have to deal with the perversion that these dang Judaizers are telling the Gentiles to baptize and circumcize their children and Paul would correct that. Oh, but wait, perhaps none of the Galatian households had children. That would explain that problem after all.

Leaving that heresy aside, why wouldn't the Apostles have to write an Epistle to "fix" the Jews understanding of Covenant? After all, for 2000 years they've gotten used to this silly idea of family solidarity in belief - that God saves them and their children. The sign of the Covenant expands to include not only Jews but Gentiles, not only men but women, but wait! It contracts to not include children! Hold on Jewish believers! Don't baptize your children!

Come on folks. Can't you feel the folly in this regulative principle argument? It reminds me of the Church of Christ that doesn't allow instrumental music because it's not reiterated by some Apostle in the New Testament.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]

or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I don't know why, but this thread has been the BEST thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Martin,

I appreciate your concern. These were not my arguments but Luther & Calvin, especially Luther. The analogy was my attempt to "see" it better apart from the hyperboly that attends such arguments, over & over again.

I have read Reformed baptist authers, which heretofore about me you did not know, that's quite alright. I understand what they are saying and disagree without reservation, the best of which was Tombs (in my opinion).

Of course as soon as I say I disagree you will reply, "poor man he's just too simple to understand", for in your paradigm, which you do, I believe, believe with all your heart you cannot fathom another. That's not a put down or just you, but a general dynamic for ALL men who trust what they know to be truth. I accept that. As a scientist I have to be objective & emotionally distant, doesn't always happen, but thus I'm trained & educated and generally do. Now, is that which is trusted subjectively - objectively true - that is an altogether other question. Its that simple.

Its a matter of speech conveying & what the sacaments point to. That's why I used the analogy - what the baptistic speech becomes in actuality. There was no strawmen in the argument if one understands that.

As for scriptures it was not my intent to get into a Scripture dual, because the problem is not with Scripture, but the presuppositions braught to them - by anybody.

Like I say constantly, the Gospel ferrets out all divergent & deformed doctrines - that's the hill I die on & concede to no man, not even you.

And as I have said before I appreciate our conversations & respect your opinions.

L

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Larry Hughes]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.

While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.

Originally posted by houseparent
I don't know why, but this thread has been the BEST thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.

Are you talking about teaching you the credo stance from a specifically non-Dispensational perspective (in this case Reformed Baptist), in light of the fact that a Dispensational understanding of baptism was previously the only credo stance you had learned? In any case, out of curiosity, is this one of the issues on which you're currently "on the fence"?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Chris:

I've read almost all the other threads her on this topic and while I learned much and even complimented another thread in the past, this one has been by far the most clear, least argumentative, and easy to understand.

As for the credo position, before coming here I nly knew of that Roman Catholic practice and as such believed it to be hersey and something to run from as fast as one could run.

I am "on the fence" for sure, but leaning toward the credo position. It may take another thread or two like this though (and the word of God of course!!!)

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by houseparent
Chris:

I've read almost all the other threads her on this topic and while I learned much and even complimented another thread in the past, this one has been by far the most clear, least argumentative, and easy to understand.

Gotcha.

Originally posted by houseparent
As for the credo position, before coming here I nly knew of that Roman Catholic practice and as such believed it to be hersey and something to run from as fast as one could run.

I am "on the fence" for sure, but leaning toward the credo position. It may take another thread or two like this though (and the word of God of course!!!)

Your mention of only knowing of it as a Roman Catholic practice makes me think you're mixing up the terms...just for clarification, the credo view is the believer's-only baptism and the paedo view is the one in favor of infant baptism. If you had those terms switched, I guess my mention above of you learning the "credo" position from a Dispensational perspective must have sounded rather strange!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.

While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.

Chris,
Just for the record, I was agreeing with Rich and his labeling things like this as 'folly'. The idea it is not that cut and dry to some people; you and I both acknowledge Christs statements and agree that their is a tithe! However, MacArthur doesn't. Would I call MacArthur irresponsible? No, just dispensational.



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.

While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.

Chris,
Just for the record, it is not that cut and dry to some people; you and I both acknowledge Christs statements. However, MacArthur doesn't. Would I call MacArthur irresponsible? No, just dispensational.

Interesting. How does he interpret those two verses (particularly "without neglecting the former") in regard to tithing and its relevance (or lack thereof) to the New Covenant believer?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe it is because Christs comments were made prior to His crucifixion; much like Martins statement that the NC is Inaugurated and not consumated. Since the comments were made prior to, MacArthur seems to imply that since it is not again mentioned by Paul et. al., then it is abrogated.



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ReformedWretch]

Yep Chris, I had mixed up the terms.

 

[Steve Owen]

Scott wrote:-

and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???

Heb 11:13. 'These [Abel, Abraham etc] all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar of were assured of them, embrased them...etc'.

Martin

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.

In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by gwine

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.

In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.

Gerry,
Are you referring to the change in signs; going from circumcision to baptism?

Both camps place a sign, that being today, baptism. The issue in question is when is the sign to be placed.
For both the credo and paedo camps, adults coming to faith have the sign placed upon confession. During the early church, it was the same. This has nothing to do with the issue of infants though. In the early church, male infants had the sign placed in circumcision. In the NT church, that sign has changed to baptism. Infants should then receive that sigh via Gods immutable command to place that sign.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Scott wrote:-

and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???

Heb 11:13. 'These [Abel, Abraham etc] all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar of were assured of them, embrased them...etc'.

Martin

Martin,
Can you say DISPENSATIONALISM?

Calvin writes:

...hence it is though they had the same salvation promised them, yet they had not the promises so clearly revealed to them as they are to us under the kingdom of Christ;

Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.

What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........If it is, the saint at the cross, during Christs time, has a hand up on both the OT saint and the present day.

As well, the term promises needs to be defined.

~It's ok Martin, I as well have a dispensational bible here in my home:
The New Testament w/ Psalms & Proverbs, Pocket Edition



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Steve Owen]

Mike Rogers asked:-

Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?................

Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.

To answer your illustration, if you say that you love your daughter, I may not conclude from that statement that you do love your son. It comes back to the Regulative Principle. Consider the following from the English reformer and martyr, John Hooper:-

The Scriptures are the law of God; none may set aside their commands or add to their injunctions. Christ's kingdom is a spiritual one....neither the Pope nor King may govern the church....Christ alone is the Governor of His church. The Scripture and the apostles' churches [he meant the examples of church rule given in Acts and some of the letters- Martin] are solely to be followed, and no man's authority. There is nothing to be done in the church but is commanded......by the word of God. [emphases mine- Martin]

It is not enough to say that there is no command against baptizing infants. We must have a positive command or example before we can do anything in God's church. Scott tells us that there is a command to circumcise male infants in Gen 17. So there is, but that is circumcision and not baptism. They are two very different operations (to say the least!) and they have different meanings as I've tried to explain in other posts. In Acts 2:41, were told, 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.' How easy it would have been for the Holy Spirit to add, '...along with their children'; but He didn't, and it's not for us to write it in for Him.

BTW, Hooper's colleague, Nicholas Ridley, was scared of The Regulative Principle and warned Hooper that his stance could only lead to one end- Anabaptism! Exactly so! True implementation of the R.P. will inevitably lead to a Baptist position. Alas that neither Hooper nor Ridley lived long enough to see the truth of it. They were both burned by Bloody Mary.

Mike continued:-

I'm not saying I agree with the paedos, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.

Well, I can and do say it. However there is very clear evidence to show that only believers are in the New Covenant. In my opinion, Jer 31:31ff (and the equivalent passage in Heb 8 ) is the elephant in the bathroom of paedo-baptism. I dealt with this in some depth in my critique of Dr McMahon's Simplistic Overview. I'm happy to set it out again if you like.

There is also the important teaching of the two seeds of Abraham (Gal 4:21ff; Isaiah 54 ) and the 'children of promise' (Gal 4:28 ). Again, I've posted on this before and no one's been prepared to interact with me on it. The Isaiah 54 thread's still open, brothers! Come and get me if you dare!

Rich wrote:-

Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)

First of all, Abraham is nowhere mentioned in Acts 2. Paedo-baptists write him in! Secondly, let's look at 2:39:-

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off....

What promise? The answer's in v38. If the Jews, their children and the Gentiles [those 'that are afar off'- Eph 2:13] will repent and be baptized (faith is pre-supposed- v37 ), they will be saved. But all three groups are only to be baptized when they give credible evidence of repentance and faith (vs 41-42 ).
Adam wrote:-

I don't know why, but this thread has been the BEST thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.

I agree! I just hope that Scott doesn't close it before we've had a chance to hash it all out a bit. However, I have some other writing to do in the next day or two, so please forgive me if I'm absent from the thread for a while.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Steve Owen]

Scott wrote:-
[/quote]
Martin,
Can you say DISPENSATIONALISM? [/quote]
Yep, and HYPERCOVENANTALISM

Calvin writes:

Quote:
...hence it is though they had the same salvation promised them, yet they had not the promises so clearly revealed to them as they are to us under the kingdom of Christ;

Well shame on Calvin! The Holy Spirit says that they didn't receive the promises. Period. He says nothing about, 'The promises so clearly revealed.'

Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.

What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........

I never said it was less efficacious. What was their faith in? It was in the Seed that should come. How He should come and in what way was a mystery to them, 'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints (Gal 1:26- cf Luke 10:23-24; 2Peter 1:10-12 ).

~It's ok Martin, I as well have a dispensational bible here in my home:
The New Testament w/ Psalms & Proverbs, Pocket Edition

Who needs a Bible when he's got a set of Calvin's commentaries?

Martin

 

[Larry Hughes]

Yep and Who needs a Bible or Calvin's commentaries when we have so many other men to listen to

 

[Scott Bushey]

"It is not enough to say that there is no command against baptizing infants. We must have a positive command or example before we can do anything in God's church."

This is the wrong question altogether. Infant baptism is the last 3 minutes of conversation on a 5 hour conversation on Covenant Theology (Biblical Theology).

If asking the question the way you posed it, it will always be missed.

The question is:

Does God desire His people to include children in the covenant, and if He commands that, has He recinded that anywhere?

The answer is "all through the bible" (He has commanded that children be part of the covenant, even unto all generations), and "He has never recinded it." That is par excellance, the RPW.

To ask the wrong question is to walk down the wrong path.

I am as "HYPERCOVENANTAL" as the rest of church history.
That is actually a derrogatory theological term used of the Federal Visionists and Auburn Avenue men by real theologians who know what Covenant Theology really is all about.

You said:

Well shame on Calvin! The Holy Spirit says that they didn't receive the promises. Period. He says nothing about, 'The promises so clearly revealed.'

Quote:

Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.

What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........


I never said it was less efficacious. What was their faith in? It was in the Seed that should come. How He should come and in what way was a mystery to them, 'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints (Gal 1:26- cf Luke 10:23-24; 2Peter 1:10-12 ).

You are clearly contradicting yourself here. Either they recieve the same promises and are saved int he same way we are, or they are not. It is that they receive the promise (not so clearly revelaed) or they don't. If they don't then you demonstrate your DIspenstionalism. If they do, then you'll have to define how its different or not different (which you seem simply to be chasing your tail here).

What did they actually recieve and what did they not recieve?
Were they saved as we are saved? If they were, then what promise did they not receive?

Your abounding in doubletalk to keep your dispensationalism - rank bad theology in my book.


[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Larry Hughes]

When Luther and Calvin after him attacked the Anabaptist they were not attacking the Romish superstitious overestimation of baptism as set forth by Rome, rather the faithless undervaluation of it in the Christian´s life in favor of penance and penitential good works. Fundamentally on this issue the Anabaptist and Rome were no different, just a matter of what the "œpenitential good work" was. Then, establishing their new penitential system in the absence of the true God set means of grace, the Anabaptist just like the Roman monks began to either war with society or disengage from it altogether to "œseek a more "œpure"œ church body on earth"œ. But just like the monks they made one crucial error, they brought the source of sin along with them - their hearts.

This we see today in American Christian life in rank action where the adult only position tends to rule the populace. Gone are the use of the signs appointed by God and Christ for the strengthening of the faith of the Christian unto the Gospel and replaced by 10,000 manmade "œmeans of grace"œ. This is the infidelity of the modern American church as a whole. Everything from aisle walking in the more gross churches, rededications in the same, promise keepers meetings and other tear jerker meetings as if man ever does keep a promise, short term mission trip vacations to "œvicariously" experience suffering making even suffering a work/means of grace, and many other penance on a scale that Medieval Rome would be green with jealousy over. All to "œgrow in the faith" by showing God "œmy dedication". Things like this always arise when God´s appointed means are diminished or changed or altered in some fashion. Gone is the reception of what HE has set forth to strengthen faith and proclaim Gospel, and in the vacuum comes man´s idols to "œshow God that, ´now I really mean business´, at least for the next minute or two of the act. The only difference in these and Maryology, praying to St. Jude and Mass is the idol itself.

Oberman notes concerning the baptism issue, "œThis made it perfectly reasonable to call entering a monastery , when novices dedicate their lives to penance, "œsecond baptism". Rejecting infant baptism and demanding adult baptism of the converted and of penitents is thus not "œradical reformation" but "œradical Middle Ages". The widespread influence of the Anabaptist movement in the face of bloody persecution fit´s the tenor of the time: the new layman is the old monk."

"œ"¦Luther´s inquiry remains valid: shifting the EMPHASIS (emphasis added - ldh) to an adult´s conscious decision to be baptized confuses God´s gift with a human act (Calvin and the early reformers saw this as well). The problem is not adult baptism but the arguments against infant baptism (this is key to grasp - ldh). An age that thrives on concepts like self-determination and credibility demands adult baptism. "œSelf-determination" is genuinely necessary to a profession of faith, especially in a post-Christian world. To with stand the test of self-analysis and the ensuing diabolical accusation, however, infant baptism is the rich sacrament for the empty-handed. The statement "œWe are beggars, that is true", does not suddenly become valid when a person is on his deathbed. It marks the way life begins."

L

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Rich wrote:-

Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)

First of all, Abraham is nowhere mentioned in Acts 2. Paedo-baptists write him in! Secondly, let's look at 2:39:-

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off....

What promise? The answer's in v38. If the Jews, their children and the Gentiles [those 'that are afar off'- Eph 2:13] will repent and be baptized (faith is pre-supposed- v37 ), they will be saved. But all three groups are only to be baptized when they give credible evidence of repentance and faith (vs 41-42 ).

Martin,

This truly takes my breath away. Only an atomistic reading of the Scriptures or a reading so intent on avoiding covenantal language would ignore the parrallels here. It is pure eisegesis to make the promise to the children of the listeners contingent upon adult repentance and faith.

Scott's note about Biblical Theology is right on target. You not only parse texts into individual terms to ignore a larger point but you seem to challenge the immutability of God's character itself. Is God a God that saves us and our children or not.

I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you. The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs. Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.

Back when scientists thought the sun and the stars revolved around the earth they could predict their courses but the math was terrribly complicated. A mathmetician and astronomer was able to demonstrate that the earth revolved around the sun because the orbital equations greatly simplified.

Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.

Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Heb 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

Martin, it seems to me from this simple passage that even Moses understood the promise "so clearly revealed" as Calvin says, to consider "the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." There is no other option, unless we charge the author of Hebrews with eisogesis to prove Covenant Theology.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by gwine

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.

In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.

Gerry,
Are you referring to the change in signs; going from circumcision to baptism?

Both camps place a sign, that being today, baptism. The issue in question is when is the sign to be placed.
For both the credo and paedo camps, adults coming to faith have the sign placed upon confession. During the early church, it was the same. This has nothing to do with the issue of infants though. In the early church, male infants had the sign placed in circumcision. In the NT church, that sign has changed to baptism. Infants should then receive that sigh via Gods immutable command to place that sign.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

In reality Scott I was referring to the paedo / credo debate in toto (hope the Latin is right.) Others in previous threads (which I can't seem to find the reference to right now - maybe 1984 hit again) have made similar comments, along the lines of "I won't respond to that since the answer is so obvious," and the like. All I am trying to say is that if it was so obvious, then we wouldn't have such division.

May I humbly suggest that the word "obvious" be used with caution?