Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $70 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Thursday, January 3, 2002
Posts: 1021
Forum Stats
795 Members
30 Forums
5912 Topics
47320 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13368
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3923
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2505
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1911
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
chestnutmare 20
Pilgrim 12
Tom 12
rstrats 8
John_C 2
BMC 2
Robin 1
Johan 1
Recent Posts
Thoughts on Thanksgiving
by chestnutmare
Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:01 AM
Belief a Choice?
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:52 PM
Chatterbox Cafe Forum
by rstrats
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:41 PM
Reflexology
by Tom
Monday, November 24, 2014 9:38 PM
New Study Bible
by Tom
Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:38 PM
Matthew 12:40
by rstrats
Friday, November 21, 2014 12:47 PM
Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#10368 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:32 AM Re: Covenantal Succession
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
2 Pet 2:1 Obviously such weren't truly "bought" by the blood of Christ.
REDEMPTION IN II PETER 2:1
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#10369 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:28 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
gotribe Offline

Permanent Resident

Registered: Friday, August 31, 2001
Posts: 1767
Loc: Chicagoland
Quote:
I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth.


Reprobation to covenant children!?! But I thought covenant children were presumed to be elect, if not regenerate. So now we have two classes within covenant children; those that are elect and those that are reprobate.

Sounds to me as though you are affirming Pilgrim's statement:

Quote:
With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.


Same two categories. Same two outcomes.
_________________________
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth

Top
#10370 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:08 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
They crawled out from us, but they were not sucklings with us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have sucked with us: but they crawled out, that they might be made manifest that they were not sucklings like us.


Joe,

Your premise is simply arbitrary. You simply assume by dogma that those who went out from us cannot include those born into the status of the church and then later manifested that they were unbelievers.

At the very least appreciate that the WCF and Heidelberg Catechism both teach that children are part of the visible church (WCF XXV.2; HC.74). Accordingly, either you must say that all the visible church is not to be treated as the church for whom Christ died, or you must reject these Reformed confessions.

"Nothing could advertise more conspicuously and conclusively that this principle of God's gracious government, by which children along with their parents are the possessors of God's covenant promise, is fully operative in the N.T. as well as in the Old than this simple fact that on the occasion of Pentecost Peter took up the refrain of the old covenant and said, 'The promise is to you and to your children.'" John Murray

Obviously Murray did not believe that children born of professing believers are truly elect no matter what. At the very least Joe, appreciate that baptism is the visible inclusion of one into the visible church. Accordingly, since you now believe in the practice of infant baptism you must either maintain that the visible church is not to be treated as those for whom Christ died; or you must assert that the visible church does not include infants, which of course denies your practice of infant baptism.

If you are going to continue, please do so with at least moderate respect and sobriety.

Blessings,

Ron

Top
#10371 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:13 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: gotribe]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
gotribe said:
Quote:
I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth.


Reprobation to covenant children!?! But I thought covenant children were presumed to be elect, if not regenerate. So now we have two classes within covenant children; those that are elect and those that are reprobate.

Sounds to me as though you are affirming Pilgrim's statement:

Quote:
With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.


Same two categories. Same two outcomes.


Kim,

I have said that covenant children are to be treated as elect and called to conversion. There are two classes of all people, elect and reprobate. However, the "visible" church by the nature of the case cannot be assured of the reality of its members.

Blessings,

Ron

Top
#10372 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:15 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
Hmmm, "that soul shall be cut off from his people". That would seem to support what Pilgrim said about the physical, as opposed to the spiritual.
It also makes me think about Paul's writing in Romans 9, on how much he grieved for his kinsmen according to the flesh.

Tom


Yes, the people being the visible people of God -- the visible church. To not continue by the terms of the covenant will cost one his "standing" of being part of the people of God.

In His Grace,

Ron

Top
#10373 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:17 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: MHeath]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
MHeath said:
so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?

Michele


Michele,

If the parent doesn't do his job the infant is "out" (i.e. to no longer be regarded as one of God's elect, though of course that status might again change). How do you interpret the verse?

Blessings,

Ron

Top
#10374 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:18 AM Re: Covenantal Succession
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Sanctus_Stultus said:
Quote:

so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?


In the old covenant that would be true Michele. But keep in mind that circumcision didn't necessarily mean that the child's heart was also circumcised too. A child could be circumcised have all the benefits of growing up in the covenant community and yet in his heart of hearts be a rebel against God completely unregenerate.


Pete


Indeed.

Ron

Top
#10375 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:34 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: E_F_Grant]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Lots of Calvinist theory, long and dry, not at all convincing and containing no references to Scripture germane to the issue of covenantal succession.

I looked hard, but found no reference in the text to our Lord, Jesus, either.

Examples:

1st cited Scripture: Psalm 68:6 "God sets the solitary in families; He brings out those who are bound into prosperity; But the rebellious dwell in a dry land."

1st NT cited Scripture: Acts 2:38,39 "Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Last cited Scripture: Hebrews 13:17 "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." NKJV

Doesn't Acts 2:38,39 disprove this concept of covenantal succession when it says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Further, please notice Peter says the promise is to as many as the Lord our God "will call" and he doesn't say the promise is to as many as the Lord our God "has elected."

Top
#10376 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:57 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Greetings Pilgram:

Please explain why John 1:12,13 alone disproves the doctrine of covenantal succession. I don't agree with this doctrine and agree with you that it is a serious error, but I'm missing why John 1:12,13 disproves it.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13 NKJV

This passage is simply saying that when you receive the Holy Spirit (born again) you receive the right to become the children of God. "Received Him" is the result of "believe in His name." "Received Him" is the same as "born of God", which as I said means received the Holy Spirit.

I think you are trying to read something more into this passage than is there, but would appreciate your elaborating upon your understanding of this passage.

Top
#10377 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:02 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: E_F_Grant]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Eleanor,
This is from an old post of Pilgrm's that I had saved. I couldn't find it here on the search, but here it is.
Quote:

Pilgrim wrote:

Acts 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.
The way I read this passage, the bold phrase is the key to its understanding. For we know from O.T. history, Paul's quotes which I have included above, etc., that this "promise" is NOT all inclusive and indiscriminate. When God makes a promise, it is an infallible one. Thus, if this "promise" of salvation is given to ALL... then ALL shall receive it. We know that not all who hear the gospel, not all covenant children and/or adults are saved. Thus is it not correct, just on a logical basis that this text is not saying that there is an immutable salvation given to all covenant children? But exegetically, I have come to understand that this "promise" is given specifically to "as many as the Lord shall call", and to them only. These are the elect, the chosen in Christ who will come to repentance and faith, just as those who heard this message from Peter's very lips, did, including their children who did likewise. "By their fruit you shall know them."

...Here is my summary view: children of believers should receive the sign of baptism as the legitimate sign of the covenant of grace. Covenant children are to presumed unregenerate until proven otherwise, since they are born in sin and under the wrath of God, no differently than all of mankind. Covenant children are "holy" (1Cor 7:14), i.e, they are truly blessed in that they have been given the privilege of being born into a home where there is at least one believing parent through and by whom the gospel will be heard and used to regenerate them, if it so be God's electing choice to do so in His perfect time. And they are subject to the teaching of righteous living, according to the Scriptures. They also have the privilege of being present in the house of God where believers offer worship, hear the Word of God preached, witness the sacraments, hear the testimonies of godly men, women and children, etc. which are the means of grace given by God to convert sinners to Christ. Covenant children should be expected to make a valid profession of faith before the church when THEY are moved to do so; having been convinced of their own conversion and the necessity of doing so, thereby becoming full members, fellow heirs of Christ, with the Body of Christ.

Top
#10378 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:07 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
carlos Offline
Addict

Registered: Tuesday, May 7, 2002
Posts: 508
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Joe,
Quote:
BIV-Babies International Version
translated from the original Goo-goo Gaa-gaa of the Gerber's version


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /><img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Carlos
_________________________
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)

Top
#10379 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:29 PM Re: Covenantal Succession
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13368
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
I think you are trying to read something more into this passage than is there, but would appreciate your elaborating upon your understanding of this passage.

Oh contráre!

Let's look at this passage carefully, shall we?

John 1:12-13 (ASV) But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: [color:"red"]who were born[/color], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


In verse 12, John tells us that those who received Christ or believed on Christ were given the "right or power" to become children of God. In the 13, which grammatically modifies verse 12, we are given the reason/cause for the receiving and/or believing, i.e., it was those who were antecedently "born". Then three negations follow which qualify this birth as being NOT: "of blood" (ancestry, familial inheritance), "of the will" (self-determination; i.e., of the will), or "of the flesh" (physically). Thus this being "born" was not of the natural creative order, inheritance or from choice, BUT it this birth was "of God", i.e., a supernatural, sovereign act of God Himself.

Thus, we can paraphrase this passage such as: "All who were born supernatural of God, received Jesus as the Messiah and/or believed upon His name and thus consequently were given the right and honor of becoming children of God."

Now, as to how this passage applies to "Covenantal Succession", it seems clear to me that one cannot be included as a child of God, a child of the promise, saved, a Christian by any natural means whatsoever. Being a child of God's kingdom is by supernatural birth only; aka: regeneration which infallibly produces a believing upon Christ.

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#10380 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:42 PM Re: Covenantal Succession
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
You simply assume by dogma that those who went out from us cannot include those born into the status of the church and then later manifested that they were unbelievers.
Read the article I gave you above RonD, as you are not correctly interpreting 2 Peter 2:1! The thought of you actually using this verse as your proof text is really "isogesis".

Quote:
Accordingly, either you must say that all the visible church is not to be treated as the church for whom Christ died, or you must reject these Reformed confessions.
I DO NOT put ANY history, confession or otherwise, above the Scriptures, but I now see you think it is more inspired than God's Word! In addition, I now understand that you believe an infant of a believer should be presumed regenerate at birth (and thus a member of the invisible Church) and later crawl out of the covenant and then be reprobate. Of course, this means you deny at least the Perseverance of the Saints and Total Depravity, which means you (1) do not believe the confessions (2) are not a Calvinist!

Why do you make a distinction in the visible and indivisible Church "for children" if YOU are going to presume them all regenerated? If you presume them regenerate then you must presume them a member of the invisible Church! Are there unregenerate members in the invisible Church? Do you pray for the salvation of your children RonD?

Please if you are going to continue this use a Scripture for your defense and exegete it "fully" in context as no one from the PR side has ever done that here "fully" to prove their point.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#10381 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:16 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Joe,

You are a bitter man who is more interested in trying to win an argument than treating your opponent's position fairly. Either you simply do not have the acumen to debate or you just don't care that you lie. In either case, I find your tactics disgusting.

Goodbye to you and to the Highway.

Ron

Top
#10382 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:34 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Registered: Saturday, September 13, 2003
Posts: 2375
Loc: Virginia
Quote:
Joe wrote:

Why do you make a distinction in the visible and indivisible Church "for children" if YOU are going to presume them all regenerated? If you presume them regenerate then you must presume them a member of the invisible Church! Are there unregenerate members in the invisible Church? Do you pray for the salvation of your children RonD?


Where did Ron say that he presumes them regenerate? Did he not say that we should exhort our children to conversion? He "presumes" them elect, at best, which we all do with respect to a great number of people who profess Christ. I presume you elect, Joe; I presume Pilgrim elect, and Susan, and Marie, and Nathan, and many others here. Where you are really disagreeing with Ron is the treatment of unprofessing children as elect, because they cannot show forth the fruits of the Spirit as adults can. That is a valid argument, I think; but is it cause to be so hostile toward Ron? You are not being gentle; in contrast, Ron has been most patient and gentle throughout this discussion.
_________________________
Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.

Top
Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 17 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Hil, BMC, Jerry DeHart, James Taylor, jonboy
795 Registered Users
Shout Box

November
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Today's Birthdays
milagros
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 487495
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 379708
Westminster Larger Catechism 356833
Roman Catholicism and salvation 272667
The importance of going to church 268946
Double predestination 258674
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 233782
Gospel truth 207550
Creation 187463
Continuity in Old and NT 155149