Children that have the sign of the covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
My question revised, "Is faith exercised by the heart (though a gift given and enabled to be exercised) upon the hearing of the Word of God necessary for justification?"
 
Matthew,

Think of it this way -

The acorn of an oak tree holds within it all the properties of the tree. There is nothing in a 150 foot oak tree that is not contained in the acorn, except for it SIZE.

The properties of faith, and everything that belongs to it, being in the heart (see the confession I edited in above) are IN the infant, child, man, woman, whoever, before they EVER outwardly profess or say anything. Justifying faith, then, is ALREADY present, though not actually exercised outwardly. Such a seed is a gift.

Much like the acorn, so is the faith in everyone believing. (Don't confuse Romans 10:9-10 for some "formula" that has to be enacted in order to be saved - that is not directed to the unsaved, but the ALREADY saved.)
 
Follow up question as well: Have you read "A Divine and Supernatural Light" by Jonathan Edwards? If so, do you agree with his positions? If you agree, how do they relate to what you have just mentioned? If you do not agree, why?
 
I do not know. I can infer (from everything of his that I have read) that it is because of his close ties of circumcision to baptism, his oversight of the things that Piper points out.
 
Yes, I've read Edwards. Edwards remains consistent in the same way I am discussing in these last few posts. He was a stalwart advocate for the same truths. Yes, a Paedo-baptist even in spite of Piper.

Super brief - the passgaes applies ONLY to the outward preaching of the Gospel. It has nothing to do with the conversation thus far. Romans 10 is pressing that the Word must go in advance and be the beginning of our salvation as outward preaching utlizing the instrumentality of men as preacher. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his Gospel preached. The point of Paul's exhortation overall there is that everything is subject to the Word of God. But this priveledge here surrounds those who hear (physcially) the Gospel. For those who hear, we must first hear, and then keep; for as faith comes by hearing, it is in this way that the spiritual life must be commenced.

As Turretin rightly says, "It is one thing to praise God subjectively and formally from knowledge and affection; another to praise him objectively and materially." Romans 10 is dealing with subjective and formal knowledge done by those who exercise reason to an extent they are interacting with the Gospel.

To condemn all infants or mentally disabled because they cannot subjectively exercise faith is, again, to succumb to a Roman Catholic idea of faith.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]
 
This is helpful as well (Turretin):

Second proposition: "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instruc­tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)." This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word "habit" is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by "seed of faith," we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).

XIV. The reasons are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made "with the fathers and their children" (Acts 2:39). Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as "remission of sins" and "sanctification") ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 32) and are communicated to them by God according to their state. In this sense (as some think), the children of believers are called "holy" by Paul (1 Cor. 7:14). This may with more propriety be referred to the external and federal holiness which belongs to them, according to which (because they are born of covenanted and Christian parents"”at least of one) they are also considered to be begotten in "holiness" (i.e., in Christianity, and not in heathenism, which was a state of uncleanness [akatharsias] and impurity).

XV. (2) The kingdom of heaven pertains to infants (Mt.19:14), therefore also regeneration (without which there is no admittance to it, Jn. 3:3, 5). Now although Christ proposes this to adults for an example of humility to show that they ought to be like children in disposition in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, still he does not exclude (but includes in that promise) infants themselves, from whom it commences.

XVI. (3) There are examples of various infants who were sanctified from the womb (as was the case with Jeremiah and John the Baptist, Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15, 80). For although here occur certain singular and extraordinary things (which pertained to them alone and not to others), still we may fairly conclude that infants can be made partakers of the Holy Spirit, who since he cannot be inactive, works in them motions and inclinations suited to their age (which are called "the seed of faith" or principles of sanctification).

XVII. (4) Infants draw from natural generation common 4. notions (koinas ennoias), and theoretical as well as practical principles of the natural law; and if Adam had continued innocent, the divine image (which consists in holiness) would have passed by propagation to his children. Therefore what is to prevent them from receiving by supernatural regeneration certain seeds of faith and first principles of sanctification, since they are not less capable of these by grace than of those by nature?

XVIII. Although there seem to be in infants no marks from which we can gather that they are gifted with the Holy Spirit and the seed of faith (because their age prevents it), it does not follow that this must be denied to them since the reason of their salvation demands it and the contrary is evi­dent from the examples adduced.

XIX. As before the use of reason, men are properly called rational because they have the principle of reason in the rational soul; thus nothing hinders them from being termed believers before actual faith because the seed which is given to them is the principle of faith (from which they are rightly denominated; even as they are properly called sinners, although not as yet able to put forth an act of sin).

XX. If any of our theologians deny that there is faith in infants or that it is necessary for their salvation (as is gathered from certain passages of Peter Martyr, Beza and Piscator), it is certain that this is meant of actual faith against the Lutherans, not of the seed of faith or the Spirit of regeneration (which they fre­quently assert is ascribed to infants). Peter Martyr, after saying that the Holy Scriptures do not say that infants believe, adds: "I judge that it is sufficient that they who are to be saved be determined by this"”that by election they belong to the property of God, they are sprinkled by the Holy Spirit, who is the root of faith, hope and love, and of all the virtues, which afterwards it exerts and declares in the sons of God, when their age permits" (Loci Communes, Cl. 4, chap. 8.14 [1583], p. 826). Thus Calvin: "Yet how, say they, are infants regenerated, having a knowledge neither of good nor of evil? We answer, the work of God, even if we do not understand it, still is real. Further infants who are to be saved, as certainly some of that age are wholly saved, it is not in the least obscure were before regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring with them from their mother's womb innate corruption, they must be purged from it before they can be ad­mitted into the kingdom of heaven, into which nothing impure and polluted enters" (ICR, 4.16.17, p. 1340). This he fully discusses in the following sections.
 
Originally posted by webmaster
Yes, I've read Edwards. Edwards remains consistent in the same way I am discussing in these last few posts. He was a stalwart advocate for the same truths. Yes, a Paedo-baptist even in spite of Piper. . . .
Click to expand...

. . . or with respect to chronology we could say that "Piper is a Credo-baptist in spite of Edwards" :pilgrim:
 
Contra Calvin, Edwards claimed that most elect children would be regenerated, not in infancy, but in later life, with a conversion experience. Edwards offers two reasons for his position. First, otherwise most of the elect would never experience their sinful natures alone. Following this line of reasoning, Edwards argued that ministers who were converted in their infancy would be at a disadvantage in counselling their congregation, for they would not understand the conversion experiences that their parishioners would undergo. Second, Edwards argues that regenerated infants would never know a deep religious experience of their deliverance from sin and misery. God's covenant relationship with believers and their seed, in the line of continued generations, was being buried.
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/newengland.htm
Click to expand...

I believe that Edwards would claim, based on the above quote and my reading of many of his sermons, including "A Divine and Supernatural Light" and "Justification By Faith Alone," that regeneration and faith are gifts given by the Holy Spirit in conjuction with the hearing of the Word at a moment in time when mental faculties are able (with the enablement of God) to hear and believe such things. This is why, though I believe that election is a truth that is secured from before the foundation of the world, faith and regeneration are gifts given when God pleases upon the work of the Holy Spirit in conjuction with the Word.

Do you understand or agree in any way? If I am incorrect either in my apprehension of truth or in my evaluation of Edwards, please explain how and in what manner.

Thank you.
 
Based on the information posted, Piper is simply blundering even on basic points that should be evident if he understood, rightly regeneration. He is mistakingly setting forth the doctrine of preaching for understanding how God, for all men saved, regnerates; but covers himself, conveniently, by saying that infants will be saved in "some mysterious way" which is nonsensical.

This DENIES John 3 that says that no one can see or eneter the Kingdom of heaven without BEING born again. (i.e. born from above).

All those in heaven, infants include Dr. Piper, are REGNERATED. There is nothing mysterious about that (though regeneration in and of itself may be mysterious in the Spirit's working). Theologically, though, it is QUITE clear.

Matthew, it sounds, like Dr. Piper, that you are having a problem with REGNERATION, and how that works. I wuold suggest reading this:

Regeneration, by Peter Van MAstricht (Jonathan Edwards' favorite book) or this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonHSRegenSanct.htm


[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]
 
Edwards states,

<P>II. I proceed now to the <I>second</I> thing proposed, <I>viz.</I>, to show how this light is immediately given by God, and not obtained by natural means. And here,
<P>1. It is not intended that the natural faculties are not made use of in it. The natural faculties are the subject of this light: and they are the subject in such a manner, that they are not merely passive, but active in it; the acts and exercises of man's understanding are concemed and made use of in it. God, in letting in this light into the soul, deals with man according to his nature, or as a rational creature; and makes use of his human faculties. But yet this light is not the less immediately from God for that; though the faculties are made use of, it is as the subject and not as the cause; and that acting of the faculties in it, is not the cause, but is either implied in the thing itself (in the light that is imparted) or is the consequence of it. As the use that we make of our eyes in beholding various objects, when the sun arises, is not the cause of the light that discovers those objects to us.
<P>2. It is not intended that outward means have no concern in this affair. As I have observed already, it is not in this affair, as it is in inspiration, where new truths are suggested: for here is by this light only given a due apprehension of the same truths that are revealed in the word of God; and therefore it is not given without the word. The gospel is made use of in this affair: this light is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ", 2 Cor. 4:4. The gospel is as a glass by which this light is conveyed to us, 1 Cor. 13:12. "Now we see through a glass." -- But,
<P>3. When it is said that this light is given immediately by God, and not obtained by natural means, hereby is intended, that it is given by God without making use of any means that operate by their own power, or a natural force God makes use of means; but it is not as mediate causes to produce this effect. There are not truly any second causes of it; but it is produced by God immediately. The word of God is no proper cause of this effect: it does not operate by any natural force in it. The word of God is only made use of to convey to the mind the subject matter of this saving instruction: and this indeed it doth convey to us by natural force or influence. It conveys to our minds these and those doctrines; it is the cause of the notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of the divine excellency of them in our hearts. Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word. But that does not argue, that the word properly causes that light. The mind cannot see the excellency of any doctrine, unless that doctrine be first in the mind; but the seeing of the excellency of the doctrine may be immediately from the Spirit of God; though the conveying of the doctrine or proposition itself may be by the word. So that the notions that are the subject matter of this light, are conveyed to the mind by the word of God; but that due sense of the heart, wherein this light formally consists, is immediately by the Spirit of God. As for instance, that notion that there is a Christ, and that Christ is holy and gracious, is conveyed to the mind by the word of God: but the sense of the excellency of Christ by reason of that holiness and grace, is nevertheless immediately the work of the Holy Spirit. -- I come now, </P>

http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/supernatural_light.html
 
So, natural faculties are not the cause, but are always used, so he seems to say.

As I have observed already, it is not in this affair, as it is in inspiration, where new truths are suggested: for here is by this light only given a due apprehension of the same truths that are revealed in the word of God; and therefore it is not given without the word. The gospel is made use of in this affair: this light is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ", 2 Cor. 4:4.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
So, natural faculties are not the cause, but are always used, so he seems to say.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
Click to expand...

As a result of regeneration, and of course in the cases that one is able to use them. An unborn infant or an imbecile cannot. O

Obvioulsy, this is what Edwards is addressing as the ideas that have been presented thus far are not foreign to his theology.
 
Supposedly, a man may not have spiritual light without the Word, God always (or we may suppose either always or most always) uses His Word:

The word of God is only made use of to convey to the mind the subject matter of this saving instruction: and this indeed it doth convey to us by natural force or influence. It conveys to our minds these and those doctrines; it is the cause of the notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of the divine excellency of them in our hearts. Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word. But that does not argue, that the word properly causes that light.
Click to expand...
 
No man, outside of the *elect infant dying in infancy or the imbecile, will, or can be saved outside of the orthodox doctrine of hearing Gods word in order to be converted. That means that all the elect WILL hear the word preached by Gods chosen vessel. All those whom do not hear, are NOT elect and rightfully perish.

*The elect infant , as well hears God word preached. However, it is by Gods Himself that this is accomplished.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
If baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
If baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?
Click to expand...

Where did you get such a definition? Is that more Piper?
 
The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXXIV
Holy Baptism

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has made an end, by the shedding of His blood, of all other sheddings of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin; and that He, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to Him whose mark and ensign we bear; and which serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father.
Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with pure water, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan.

The ministers, therefore, on their part administer the sacrament and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing, and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of His fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds.
We believe, therefore, that every man who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal ought to be baptized but once with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same, since we cannot be born twice. Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.


The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20


The Larger Catechism, Questions 165-166
Q165: What is Baptism?
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2]

1. Acts 2:38; 8:36-37
2. Gen. 17:7, 9; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:16; I Cor. 7:14; Matt 28:19; Luke 18:15-16
 
I know what the confession states. Please share your view, if you don't mind. Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers. Please contradict that statement from Scripture, not from the confession (though the confession is supposed to be a summation of Scripture, in this point it is in error, that is my proposition).

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
If baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?
Click to expand...

Matthew,

You are still missing the point. Edward's sermon concerns those who can hear the Word of God and exercise outwardly what they hear. It is based on Matthew 16:17 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

It is a sermon on illumination, as Edward's distinguishes it. It evidences Peter's blessedness as it intimates that his knowledge is above any that flesh and blood can reveal. It is not new information, but impressed information (i.e. a light to what was revelaed to him - intellectually).

Edwards saw three points to illumination and may be studied at three points: regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

Edwards states the importance of notional knowledge as he presses hard on the congregation to study with the "œprobability" that God will grant them to be spiritually enlightened. "œSeeking" doctrine is already present in Edwards´ earliest biblical preaching.

If we would get spiritual and saving knowledge we must receive all opportunities of hearing. Those that don´t think that spiritual knowledge worthy the constant attendance on the preaching of the word can´t reasonably expect that God will bestow it on them. If we make little things an excuse for staying at home and not coming to God´s house for instruction, God may justly make our . . . sins a means to provoke him to withhold instruction."

In scholastic fashion, Edwards finds the procuring cause to be the merit and intercession of Christ; the efficient cause the Holy Spirit; the instrumental cause the word of God, and the foundational cause, regeneration. Regeneration is something infants may experience.

What God does in regeneration is in the foreground while His sovereignty is in the background in the sermon on Matthew 16:17; His sovereignty in regeneration is in the foreground and what He does in regeneration in the background in the sermon on John 3:7. The Matthew sermon (which is the Divine and Supernatural Light), the second to be published and probably the most favorably received of all by subsequent generations. Edwards´ statement of his doctrine is, however, much fuller: "œThat there is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light, immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means." This means that 1) you have to understand Edwards in context of his theology. 2) That what you are proposing is not what Edwards taught (i.e. that the Word must be preached for men to have faith).

Effectual calling, conversions, repentance and regeneration were approximately synonymous terms. An important statement in Original Sin shows the identity of the last three terms.

"I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word μεταÌϚνοια (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word "œconversion" means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it) the following things do shew.Effectual calling, conversions, repentance and regeneration were approximately synonymous terms. An important statement in Original Sin shows the identity of the last three terms." Works (Yale), 3:362, see Original Sin Part III, Chapter II.

Edwards notes observing that the mind is passive in regeneration.

Edwards often notes that "œconversion" too has reference to the passivity of the mind as well as its reflex activity. He especially notes that repentance is a change of the mind [which as we shall soon see he constantly attributes exclusively to God the mind of man being passive (if not hostile) at the time of the change.] Man´s active turning away from sin and toward God is, again, a reflex of God´s activity in changing. So, in Edwards, regeneration, repentance and conversion have their passive aspects. "œEffectual calling" or "œcalling" also possesses this feature though it is followed by an active human response, of course.

Gerstner notes:

With regard to this topic, consider also the important M 15:

"IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. To dispute, as more latterly they do, whether the divine assistance is always efficacious or no, is perfectly ridiculous. For it is self-evident that the divine assistance is always efficacious to do that which we are assisted to. And it is no less certain, that it is efficacious to all that God intends it shall be efficacious [to]; that is, when God assists, he assists to all that he intends to assist to. But that the divine assistance is always efficacious to all that it has a tendency to in its own nature, is what nobody affirms."

In Edwards´ theology regeneration or "œefficacious grace" is immediate and supernatural. He says, "Things which God doth for the salvation and blessedness of the saints are like an inviolable chain reaching from a duration without beginning to a duration without end," p. 3, Contribution lecture, December 7, 1739.

Regeneration consists in the divine infusion of a new nature. It is a gracious principle in the soul. This is no mere alteration of habits or outward behavior, but a change on the inside. It is "œphysical" (in the realistic sense of the word) and not merely moral.

Gerstner says, "The clearest and fullest statement that the Spirit is the foundation of regeneration is found in the Treatise on Grace, which was not first published until 1865." He quotes Edwards:

I suppose there is no other principle of grace in the soul than the very Holy Ghost dwelling in the soul and acting there as a vital principle. To speak of a habit of grace as a natural disposition to act grace, as begotten in the soul by the first communication of Divine light, and as the natural and necessary consequence of the first light, it seems in some respects to carry a wrong idea with it. Indeed the first exercise of grace in the first light has a tendency to future acts, as from an abiding principle, by grace and by the covenant of God; but not by any natural force. The giving one gracious discovery or act of grace, or a thousand, has no proper natural tendency to cause an abiding habit of grace for the future; nor any otherwise than by Divine constitution and covenant. But all succeeding acts of grace must be as immediately, and, to all intents and purposes, as much from the immediate acting of the Spirit of God on the soul, as the first; and if God should take away His Spirit out of the soul, all habits and acts of grace would of themselves cease as immediately as light ceases in a room when a candle is carried out. And no man has a habit of grace dwelling in him any otherwise than as he has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him in his temple, and acting in union with his natural faculties, after the manner of a vital principle. So that when they act grace, ´tis, in the language of the Apostle, "œnot they, but Christ living in them." Indeed the Spirit of God, united to human faculties, acts very much after the manner of a natural principle or habit. So that one act makes way for another, and so it now settles the soul in a disposition to holy acts; but that it does, so as by grace and covenant, and not from any natural necessity. Edwards, "œTreatise on Grace," in Grosart, Selections, p. 55; reprinted in Treatise on Grace and other posthumously published writings, by Jonathan Edwards, edited, with an Introduction by Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clark & Co. Ltd., 1971), pp. 74-75. Cf. the discussion of Bruce Stephens in his "œChanging Conceptions of the Holy Spirit in American Protestant Theology From Jonathan Edwards to Charles G. Finney," St. Luke Journal 33 (June 1990): 209-223.
Click to expand...

Gerstner says, "We may conclude this section with a question concerning the relation between regeneration and illumination. Both mark the very beginning of the Christian life. How are they related to each other? They seem in their beginning not to be mutually dependent. That is, the illumination does not seem to depend on the regeneration, nor the regeneration on the illumination. The illumination comes from God immediately, not from the nature, even the regenerate nature, of man. Nor can the regeneration come from the illumination. The amiableness of the divine attributes is always there, but it is never seen by the carnal nature of man. The natural man is totally destitute of this "œknowledge." Therefore, when a person sees the light he is no longer an unconverted person. Unconverted persons cannot see it in order to become changed. They must be changed in order to see it. Therefore the conversion must come directly from God even as the light does. But they must come simultaneously. When the light dawns, at that very moment the spiritual eyes are opened. These two phenomena are not causally related, it would seem, but only occasionally. This is Edwards´ soteriological "œpre-established harmony.""

That is "Edwards" on how regneration occurs.
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
I know what the confession states. Please share your view, if you don't mind. Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers. Please contradict that statement from Scripture, not from the confession (though the confession is supposed to be a summation of Scripture, in this point it is in error, that is my proposition).

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
Click to expand...

That is my view. This is exactly what the confessions are made for. To combat error and heresy. I cannot say it any better.............


As far as "immersion" goes, here is a paper on it.....

THE MODE OF BAPTISM
(as cited from William the Baptist)

I. Passages that imply pouring or sprinkling

"¢ Daniel 4:33 (LXX 5:21)
-Nebuchadnezzar (bapto) wet with the dew of heaven

"¢ Mark 7:4 (cf. John 2:6)
-tables immersed? The largest estimate (as per John 2:6) would be 27 gallons, hardly a sufficient amount for immersing
-besides immersing itself does not accomplish cleaning;

"¢ Mark 10:38-39
-Christ is speaking of his sufferings in regards to baptism
-does He immerse himself in His troubles, or are His sufferings applied to
Him?

"¢ Luke 11:38
-washing your hands; does it mean immersing or pouring water over them?

II. Baptism as burial (Romans 6:2-4)

Baptism, it is argued, is a picture of Christ´s burial (cf. Romans 6:2-4).
The pastor asks what the burial of Jesus had to do with his great work for us.
William answers and says that it proved that He really died. Besides it shows forth, in contrast, His resurrection.
The pastor replies that being buried is not necessary to prove the resurrection. Sunday is the day in which we commemorate Christ´s resurrection, and it is more than sufficient to remember it (baptism itself therefore does not need to be invoked to commemorate it).
The pastor goes on to say that the purpose of Romans 6 is not to teach us about baptism, for no other passage in the scripture ties baptism to burial, but to tell us about "œour death to sin." (page 51)
When we examine the burial of Christ, we see that he was not placed in the earth. If he was placed in a room in a house with the door shut it would not have been materially different. Christ was not buried in the earth. If we are baptized into his death, or buried with him we are speaking of our union with the Lord and not baptism per se. Even so, as per the arguments of the Baptist, sprinkling or pouring fits the picture here just as well as immersion (see the following argument concerning the nature of Christ´s baptism).

III. Baptism and the work of the Spirit

Mark 1:8 "œI indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."
-the water refers to, in scripture, as a cleansing agent; just as the Holy Spirit cleanses us from sin
Proverbs 1:23; Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28-29 (cf. Acts 2:16,33); John 1:33; Mark 1:10; Titus 3:6

Even in Acts 2:1-4 where the Spirit descends upon the apostles it is not the Spirit that fills the house but the noise of wind; the Spirit comes down upon them (N.B. just as the Spirit descends upon Christ after His baptism).

IV. The baptism of Christ (Mark 1:8-10)

John´s baptism was "œunto repentance." Since our Lord did not need repentance he was baptized "œto fulfill all righteousness." In Numbers 8:5-7 we have a hint as to what this (legal) righteousness was: the Levites were sprinkled with water for their cleansing or purification.

In Mark 1:9-10 we read that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan and came out of the water after His baptism. It is assumed that this means immersion, but this cannot be proven. Taken in connection with Numbers 8, it seems clear that Jesus could have been baptized as to His whole person with just a sprinkling (representing whole cleansing. cf. John 13:10 "œJesus said to him, "˜He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.´" cf. Hebrews 9:19)

As an aside, looking at John´s baptism as well as that of Acts (Acts 2:41) it seems that to baptize the multitudes (especially the 3,000 in Acts) would require massive amount of water as well as time. It is unlikely that the authorities would have allowed a public immersion of this size; far more likely is it that they were sprinkled as per Hebrews 9:19. Besides, it would have been exhausting to immerse all such persons; an insurmountable duty for the apostles let alone one prophet!

V. The baptism of the eunuch (Acts 8:36-39)

It is understood that the eunuch was immersed because he went down onto the water and was baptized. The only problem with this is that it is recorded that Phillip went into the water as well, and no one would suggest that he baptized himself and the eunuch.
Secondly, Philip is told to go to Gaza to meet the eunuch. It is well known that there was not enough water in such a region to baptize.
Thirdly, the eunuch had the understanding that "œit was his duty to be baptized." (page 81). This is a reference to Isaiah which he was reading. Philip explained chapter 53, and we read in Isaiah 52:15 "œSo shall He sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; For what had not been told them they shall see, And what they had not heard they shall consider."

VI. The baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48)

The reason those who hear the gospel are baptized is because of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them ("œpoured out" cf. 10:38). The rite of baptism is tied to the work of the Holy Spirit who comes from above. Second, the baptism of the people is implied to be instant. There is no hint that they are brought to water but that water is brought to them.






[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers.
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
Click to expand...

Where in the world do the Scriptures even hint this? Where does it say anywhere that the sign of the covenant = faith expressed?

Baptism is a sign. Baptism is a seal. (see covenant signs and seals at Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12). Where do the Scriptures say that "Baptism is to be administered only to those who express faith?" Huh? I know of no credo-baptist through HISTORY that asserts they can prove that statement Scripturally. Rather, they deductively come to conlcusions about baptism by a dispensational hermeneutic appealing to NT passages.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]
 
Originally posted by webmaster
Originally posted by piningforChrist
Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers.
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
Click to expand...

Where in the world do the Scriptures even hint this? Where does it say anywhere that the sign of the covenant = faith expressed?

Baptism is a sign. Baptism is a seal. (see covenant signs and seals at Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12). Where do the Scriptures say that "Baptism is to be administered only to those who express faith?" Huh? I know of no credo-baptist through HISTORY that asserts they can prove that statement Scripturally. Rather, they deductively come to conlcusions about baptism by a dispensational hermeneutic appealing to NT passages.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]
Click to expand...

Matt,
I already asked this earlier:

Please show me a passage in the new testament that forbids placing the sign upon a child? Where did God say to change the program from what He originally decreed, that being placing the sign upon the child.

The great commission commands to make disciples (not all disciples were true believers) and to place the sign upon them.
Click to expand...
 
Romans 5:20-6:4:

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
 
Care to comment on Ananias and Saphira; they were baptised? Or how about Demas? He was baptized.

Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

How about these guys, they were as well baptized. Were they justified?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top