The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Thoughts on 1Cor 7:12ff

Pilgrim wrote:


Yes, this is indeed a miserable state of events and I would submit that those who have yet to know the reality of baptism of the Holy Spirit are most adamant about this poor substitute.

I was recently told in an OPChurch that if I didn't hold to infant baptism, for reasons of conscience, that it would, according to the WCF 28.5 be considered a "great sin" and thus my request for membership would be looked on unfavorably, as in that case I would really be a "baptist" and wouldn't really be a presbyterian. I was surprised and disappointed in this stance since I know that Susan, and friends in Scottland have been received into membership into Presbyterian congregations while holding to a credobaptist position.

In Him,

Gerry

I have given the definition for holy several times from several different angles, but you still seem to be running into road blocks in its usage? But, we do not have to take ANY leaps of faith on this one as Paul says the children are holy (though you say, With regard to children of believers, they are Not holy). This is the Scripture:

You have to deal with the Apostle Paul and more importantly, the Scripture as a whole, not me.

This continues to be the fallacy in your argument. You argue against the baptism of children by quoting Scriptures dealing with adults or you simply quote them out of context. Take for instance Acts 2:41. Let us look at it in context:

These Scriptures are addressing adults—for of course babies could not understand. But, in addressing those adults he does not merely say, as you did, 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized...'. No, what was said prior to this was, “For the promise is for you and your children ....". Think of the Jewish mindset. Think of the uprising had Peter said something like, “Come you Jews come to Jesus. Now your children will not be included in this New Covenant, which is far better than the Old Covenant, but come to Jesus anyway. Don’t worry about your children.” Would the Jews have complained about this? No doubt the Corinthians, the Galatians, or someone would have, but yet we hear not one complaint in Scripture, do we? No, because as Peter preached it at Pentecost, their children were included in the Covenant. Jesus came to fill up the eternal covenant and not totally abolish it.

A Christian adult should be baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, for baptism is the sign indicating that a person belongs to the company of God’s people. Repentance, baptism, and faith are theologically related. He has already accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior (to the best of our knowledge) and knows that through Christ’s blood his sins are forgiven. Indeed, Peter instructs the people that baptism must be “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” But, before all this Peter said, “For the promise is for you and your children…” Remember the church is in new growth period and theology is developing right in front of them (see Kistemaker’s commentary). Later we see households being baptized (The household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48, 11:13-18); The household of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15); The household of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:30-34); The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14); The household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16); The household of Gaius (1 Cor 1:14 - by implication; 1 Cor 1:16 ). Though one may try to argue that nowhere does it say that the households have children (which is unbelievable in and of itself), the usage of the term household bares different evidence.. The OIKOS formula bares witness to this:

Yes, the covenant is filled up in One Seed and that Seed is Christ. But, Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew clearly shows (as well as your referenced verse) that Jesus clearly descended from Abraham’s Seed. Now, if we are of the seed of Christ, and Christ is of the seed of Abraham, then we too are the seed of Abraham.

But, he was circumcised anyway wasn’t he? Your failure here is to understand that there is a visible and invisible covenant church. The Covenant includes both saved church members and lost church members—even in Credo Churches.

Amazingly, you have just proved that circumcising (1) non-professors of faith, and (2) non-professors who are known in advance that are not part of the invisible church were to be circumcised as part of the visible community! And yes indeed, your evidence looks forward to Christ for there is continuity in the Covenant of Grace. Thus, we can surmise that we may (1) baptize non-confessing babies (2) and yes, if it were possible, even baptize a baby that we had advance knowledge was not among the elect. As you have proved it is all a matter of obeying the covenant (remember Moses’ trouble for not obeying it in this issue)! Your evidence is overwhelming. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Steve you must not know much about my past history. I was a Reformed Baptist for years, preached in their churches, attended Baptist seminaries, et. al. I had a luncheon with Dr. Roger Nicole (a Baptist, a Visiting Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and Contributing Editor to The Founders Journal) this past week to discuss the issue of Baptism. I think I have a very good idea of what the credo hermeneutic(s) entails. But, in my language, and that of several seminaries, we use short cut descriptions to keep from saying a complete paragraph when something may be summed up in a word or two. This in no way (as I have explained before) is meant to be negative, but only descriptive.

Enjoy

Joe

Do you agree with the following little rhyme?

The New is in the Old concealed
The Old is in the New revealed.

Tom

Hi Joe,
No, I didn't know your history (any more than you know mine). Let me say that I still regard any use of the word 'dispensational' with reference to me as insulting and I wish you wouldn't do it.

With regard to the word holy (1Cor 7:14), I dealt with this in my very first post and you have never interacted with that. You say, 'I have given the definition for holiness from several different angles.' Well, you haven't given it from mine, and I don't think you have given it correctly in the context of mixed marriage in 1Cor 7:14. Read my first post again

The change in covenants may be the reason that the vast majority of Jews hated first our Lord and then the Apostles (Acts 7:54ff). Christianity is more than a sect of Judaism, otherwise it would never have caused the hostility it did. Again, with the greatest respect, you are sewing the new cloth on the old garment, and putting the new wine in the old wineskins. The Old Covenant may have included children, but it did not save them (Exod 33:19); rather it put the yoke of the law upon them ( Acts 15:10; Matt 11:29-30). The promise of the New Covenant is that 'Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.' That is why the New Covenant is a 'better covenant' (Heb 8:6), based on 'better promises' bringing in a 'better hope' (7:19).

You mention Acts 2:39. 'For the promise is to you and your children and to all that are afar off.' Amen! What is thje promise? That they should repent and be baptized (v38). [I'm sure you will agree that faith in Christ is assumed in the repentance- cf. vs 36-37] Infant children are not able to repent and therefore they were not baptized. How easy it would have been for Luke to have written 'along with their children' in v41. But he didn't do it and you have no right to write it in for him.

I have no time to deal with 'oikos' in this post, but I'm happy to come back to it if you'd like me to.

Yes, Christians are the true children of Abraham (Gal 3:29). But if we are Christ's, as the verse says then we shall never perish (John 10:28). This cannot be said authoritatively of infants, baptized or not. 'For you are all sons of God.....' How? 'Through faith in Christ Jesus.' There simply isn't any other way, and rooting through the Old Covenant and imposing it on the New isn't going to find one.

Finally, with reference to Abraham and Ishmael, you are assuming that circumcision and baptism are the same thing. This is never stated in the Bible.

Time has prevented me frm dealing with this as I would wish. However, it's clear that we are just going over very old ground. I shall try to come back once more to address the original topic of the thread, but then I think it's probavbly best if we agree to disagree and move on.

Every blessing,
Steve

Well Tom a pithy saying and $2 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The foundation of my theology is not Malone's saying, but Scripture. But IF you must have a saying try,

The Old is in the New concealed
The New is in the Old revealed.

What is puzzling is that you like this saying, but see less continuity in the Covenants. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

First, I did respond to your definition with a two paragraph definition of the term holy here. Second, as far as John Gill’s definition, I have no problem if it is properly applied. But, this is not what you did. Now Gill’s definition did not deal with a person’s righteousness/justification, did it? Your quote says, [color:"0000FF"]Gill and others say that this word ('hagiazo') is used frequently in Jewish wedding rites meaning to 'espouse' or 'set apart in marriage'. The unbelieving partener has been sanctified in that sense.[/color] But, you then state, [color:"0000FF"]If the children are 'holy' enough to be baptized without a confession of faith, so is the pagan husband or wife,”[/color] relating the term holy to righteousness/justification. Thus, you state on one hand, [color:"0000FF"]the words 'sanctified' and 'holy' in v14 NKJV mean the same thing. They come from the same root ('hagiazo', hagios'), [/color]but then on the other hand, you use the term in two different ways. Which is it? Is the Apostle Paul using the term as Gill says, set apart in marriage, or in reference to righteousness/justification? If you do not mind I will agree with the Apostle Paul, against your view, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.....”

First, I am glad you finally concur that the Old Covenant included children. Maybe we can even say circumcised children? But, I am rather disappointed that you think that none of the Old Testament saints were saved? The Old Covenant looked forward to Christ and we can be assured that the saints of the Old Covenant were saved (Heb 11, et. al.). Circumcision did not save, but to say that there is no economy of salvation under the Old Covenant is false. The Old Testaments saints entered the economy of salvation by faith. They could look back to their circumcision as a sign and seal of the eternal Covenant God had made with them. Prior to salvation they were a part of the covenant (visible/invisible church distinction).

While I fully agree with the Scripture, that 'Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved, it does not say one cannot be baptized prior to their call, thus being consistent with all of Scripture—including the Old Testament. Since there is continuity in the Covenants then this same hermeneutical value (known as Covenant theology) would hold for Acts 2:36-41, Abraham and Ishmael, etc. As Berkhof says, It is this Abrahamic covenant, set forth in Genesis 15 and 17, that underlies the whole subsequent development of God's redemptive promise, word, and action. It is in terms of the promise given to Abraham, that in him and in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed, that God sent forth His Son in the fullness of time in order that He might redeem them that were under the law and all without distinction might receive the adoption of sons. It is in fulfillment of this promise to Abraham that there is now no longer Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free, that Christ is all and in all, and that all believers are blessed with faithful Abraham. The redemptive grace of God in the highest and furthest reaches of its realization is the unfolding of the promise given to Abraham and therefore the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant.

Well here we concur. My schedule unexpectedly changed this week so I could interact more, but that time is now over. So, now I will see you in a few weeks, unless…

Nope Joe can't go with it that dog won't hunt. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> And thus we come to the end I do believe of all of this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> I (along with Malone and other RB'ers) believe in the progressive revelation of God and that the New Testament being the last and most complete revelation is how we are to interpret the old. Call this Dispenstionalism if you want all though I wouldn't (and I especially wouldn't do it in front of Steve <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />).

But I would say that some good has come from all of this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> I more clearly understand your views now and I would say that at least for some of us Baptists (Pil you really need to get a immersion graemlin just for us) we know whom to go to for some good iron sharpening iron debate.

You are better than this!
Where has Steve even hinted that he believed that the OT saints were not saved! This only adds fuel to the fire. This subject already causes enough divisions among brothers without deliberately misrepresenting another's views!

I think Joe might have been referring to this statement which Steve made in this reply Steve's reply here where he wrote:

The Old Covenant may have included children, but it did not save them (Exod 33:19); rather it put the yoke of the law upon them ( Acts 15:10; Matt 11:29-30).

I can see how Joe might have understood Steve as saying what he did. What needs to be realized is that even Abraham wasn't save BECAUSE he was in the covenant, but rather the covenant was established historically with him AFTER he believed, although it was God's eternal purpose to save him. There is a difference in being part of the covenant community and being "in the covenant". This seems to be something Baptists either overlook or dismiss. All those who received the covenant sign, circumcision, were included in the covenant community, but only those who had faith were actually the "seed" of promise and in covenant with God. It is no less true in the New Covenant (administration); there are many who are part of the covenant community, but only some are actually in covenant with God. Even Baptists have to recognize this fact. How quickly Baptists try to defend their view of "believers baptism" by saying that not all who are baptized are saved.

The issue isn't who is saved in EITHER administration, for both sides agree that it is only by faith. The issue is, however, WHO is to be part of the covenant community and receive the sign of that administration. Paedobaptists believe that children are to CONTINUE to be recognized as such and Baptists place the restriction for admission to those who profess faith. The essence of the covenant, IMHO, is exactly the same. Children, although they are to be included in the New as they were for 1000's of years previously in the Old, STILL need to come to repentance and believe upon Christ unto salvation. So, what's the problem?

In His Grace,

Hi Pilgrim:

You wrote:


If Joe were a new believer, not a pastor and shepherd of the sheep, and had little knowledge of spiritual things and had not interacted with Steve, an elder in a reformed Baptist church, to any degree then, I too, could see how he "might" have understood him as he did.

But I must agree with Susan that that comment struck me as being unproductive and uncharitable and, I would add, superior sounding, similarly to the "dispensationalist" labeling that has been used in these discussions. It is in my view another form of a type of approach to "discussion" that is characterized by such thinking and phrases as: "oh, I know what the (read "your") problem is", as if all the answers reside with the speaker and it is only a matter of undeluding the poor confused soul.

I agree with Steve that I don't like being called dispensational no matter how you couch and qualify the term and neither, I suspect, would Spurgeon. Would that he were here to give us his response.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> To this reformed person, to be called a little bit dispensational is like being called a litte bit homosexual, as, by it's very nature, it carries all sorts of negative connotations with it that cannot be "word engineered away".

I would add that I don't really care how many times one has had lunch with Roger Nicole, or is personal friends with Charles Stanley, etc., for the Lord is not a respector of persons.

And finally, I would just suggest that if our friend's workload is too heavy that he consider taking a few less hours of class work. "In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength: Is 30:15

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry,

Your comments are duly noted about Joe. However, I do think you are being less than charitable on several accounts. At the risk of stirring things up even more, I will address a few of them with the hopes of clarification for all:

• Re: Joe's objection to Steve's remark about children not being saved in the O.T., etc. If you have read my comment as it was written I said in so many words, that I too could see how Steve's comment could be construed as such and such. I fail to see how Joe's educational achievements, Christian service, etc., guarantees that one infallible insight into another's comments. Bottom line: there was really no need for the ad hominem slap.
• Re: Dispensational label. Not only Joe, but I too have gone to reasonable lengths to explain that the "term" Dispensational cannot be restricted to the matter of eschatology. In fact, I laid out to Tom what Joe's meaning and intent was by showing the commonality of many of the Credobaptist's hermeneutic and that used by eschatological "Dispensationalists", e.g., the "plain reading of the text", a "psycho-statistical mean", etc., which leads obviously to a discontinuity which Paedobaptists do not accept. I find nothing whatsoever "negative" or derogatory in the use of the term when used in this manner. The ONLY reason I can think of that someone might take offense is if they are extremely anti-Dispensational and thus find nothing valuable in the word at all. Let's me perfectly honest here, shall we! I am more often than not called a "Calvinist", which used by the person calling me that, intends by it something entirely negative; a blight on society, a demonic evil, etc. However, I surely don't feel the same way about the word as is intended in such cases. Thus, I simply ignore the intent and accept it. In this case, Joe nor I have any intent in the use of the word to convey anything negative by it. All we can do is to explain, which it has been done several times now, how it is being used. I believe the onus is upon you to accept the intended use or supply a better term which describes the hermeneutic more accurately.
• Lastly, is your unkind and inaccurate remark re: Joe's workload. Being one that knows Joe quite well and all that he is involved in, I think that your remark(s) were really unwarranted. His participation here, like everyone else's, is by choice and not necessity. His real responsibilities at his church and school are far beyond which I dare say most here could even think to fulfill. Having been a student at several grad schools I can identify with the conundrum of having to deal with changed schedules, canceled classes, etc. You try and put together a schedule for yourself based upon what others have scheduled. But when last minute changes come your way, your entire nice little schedule suddenly falls apart. So, bottom line here is that Joe, believing that he had a certain amount of time allotted due to canceled classes etc., came here and began participating in the discussions. When that free time was expired, he knew he would not be able to return; giving higher priority to family, church and school. It sure sounds reasonable to me. So why the unkind remarks? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Again, from only my personal experience, it seems that Baptists are incredibly hard on paedobaptists, not that there are not some paedobaptists who aren't unnecessarily hard on Baptists; we have seen a few here, no, which if you recall, I rebuked on more than one occasion! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> But it seems to me that there is far too much emphasis and/or importance put on this matter of baptism. If it is NOT a matter of salvation, then why all the huff? Does it REALLY matter if a parent has their child baptized and believes that the child needs to come to repentance and faith, should the Lord have mercy upon it, to be saved? Where's the beef? If the Scripture's teaching on baptism CRYSTAL CLEAR, then there wouldn't be this divide. But the truth is, it isn't THAT clear and thus we have two distinct views with all their variations in both camps. But again I ask, since it is NOT a matter of salvation, why all the heat? You don't want to baptize infants? I say fine, as long as you raise your children in the ways of the Lord, impressing them of their need of Christ and to walk in His ways. And I would ask for the same respect from Baptists in this regard as well.

That's my

In His Grace,

Pilgrim

I must agree with you that Gerry’s comments towards Joe's work load were uncharitable. While I might agree with him on the issue of baptism, if he honestly believes Joe is being uncharitable in his remarks, he shouldn't return the favor by doing the same back.
That to me shows that he is writing by his emotions, rather than charity.
With me anyway, when I allow myself to post without my emotions in check, pride enters in and learning goes out the door.

Like Pete, I have learned a lot about this issue, from both a Credo & Paedo perspective. While I may come to a different conclusion than Paedo's do on the matter, I never the less don't want to make the matter bigger than it actually is.

Tom

Pilgrim,
My comments were based on the fact that Steve had previously said this to Joe on this thread.
I'll be quiet now! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps several of us, whether we lunch with Roger Nicole or not, could benefit by reading again his excellent article, 'Polemic Theology- How to deal with those who differ from us.'

I'm going to make one more post on this thread in the next day or so, and then I'm through with discussing baptism- for a while, anyway.

Blessings to all,
Steve

Good article <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article3.html