<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If you speak to your children about the saving knowledge of Christ to help them understand that Christ died for them, that they must have faith, repentance, et. al., then you too do not believe in presumptive regeneration... </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This is what I do.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]RonD, Please do not feel I am pressuring you and I apologize if you have taken what I have posted otherwise. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Joe,<br><br>I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I felt pressured. I didn't feel so at all, so no need to apologize. <br><br>Merry Christmas,<br><br>Ron
I figured you did and thus you do not actually believe in presumptive regeneration. Your practice here reveals what you really believe. <br><br>I praise God that you do share the Gospel with your children and I hope they grow up to be great Christians. Knowing you only from this forum, IHMO you will be very studious to show them the truth of Scripture and they will probably grow up to be great theologians as well. Maybe, Ron Van Tillians [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>May God Bless.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
hisalone,<br><br>I desired to post one more detail concerning "infant baptism" This is related to Ishmael and Esau. They both were circumcised (Gen 17:23). The general provisions for circumcision seen in Gen 17:9-14 are very firm here. Now, PRIOR to the circumcision of Ishmael, Abraham was told, "My covenant will I establish with Issac." Additionally, Rebbecca knew by revelation, prior to the birth of her two sons, that Esau would be rejected. This information though regarding God's divine purpose was not used by either Abraham or Rebbecca for depriving either child--Ishmael or Esau respectively, of the sign of circumcision. Thus, if you understand that circumcision was replaced by baptism (Col 2:11-12) in the continuation of the covenant in God's one Church, then (1) members of the Church (Abraham and Rebbecca) were being obedient to Gen 17 (2) an outer covenant relationship, as opposed to an inner covenant relationship, was being recognized/obeyed, thus (3) there needs be no profession of faith by infants to be baptized, for a covenant relationship is in view, and (4) this argument also does away with presumptive regeneration, as nothing could be presumed, as they (Ishmael and Esau) were already rejected PRIOR to circumcision.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 1) where in scripture does it speak of infant baptism?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Where does it speak of any age? It isn't a matter of age, but a sign of a covenant. The difference is that we orthodox folks see a continuity of the familial covenant in both testaments.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]A.A.Hodge, who I respect highly even says we can presume. Presumption??</font><hr></blockquote><p>I think we all presume to a certain degree. Or are you going to tell me you know who the elect are?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]2) Also, I do not believe linking circumcision with baptism washes either.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Well, the early church seemed to suppot it, as well as a millenia of church history. <br><br>Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: <br>Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. <br><br>Perhaps you would take a stab at this thread then: Who Departed?.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Circumcision was performed in a Theocracy.</font><hr></blockquote><p>So, when the Jewish peoples were under other authorities they didn't circumcise? Because I believe they were under Roman rule and still practicing this?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] The circumcised males were born into the covenant people.</font><hr></blockquote><p> But not every Jew was elect. That's your dilemma. My child was born into a covenant relationship as well, and therefore receives the sign. elect or not, just as Jewish males did.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] We are not covenant people until we too are born (regeneration) into the spiritual family.</font><hr></blockquote><p>This isn't how it worked in the OT. Could you provide some scripture showing the discontinuity?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] It is then, upon profession of belief that we are baptized.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Again, some scripture, stating this is the specific way?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Children of believers are not born into the covenant family until they too are regenerated.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Again, this is opposite how it worked in the OT. All Jewish people were born into the covenant, but not all were elect. There are several arguments made here for the VISIBLE CHURCH vs. the TRUE CHURCH. I suggest reading them, or showing you can list the elect infallibly.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I do not see anywhere where anything but believers baptism is taught.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I can show several baptisms where the recipients profession isn't recorded. That is the dilemma for you though. You honestly don't uphold believers baptism, because you cannot know a persons heart infallibly. Only God knows His elect. You uphold PROFESSORS BAPTISM. You (uh oh) presume upon that profession, the individuals possibility of true election. <br><br>Nice to meet you, and hope this helped. God grant us all further grace and an openeing of our hearts.<br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where does it speak of any age? It isn't a matter of age, but a sign of a covenant. The difference is that we orthodox folks see a continuity of the familial covenant in both testaments.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I stand by my original statement, nowhere does it speak of the baptism of anyone but believers. The infant was inserted because I was showing the absurbity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I think we all presume to a certain degree. Or are you going to tell me you know who the elect are?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Presuming that scripture says something when it doesn't is not the same as presuming who the elect are. I don't understand your question. Where did I ever say I presume who is elect?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Well, the early church seemed to suppot it, as well as a millenia of church history. <br><br>Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: <br>Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. <br><br>Perhaps you would take a stab at this thread then: Who Departed?.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Baptism is a sign of the Christian's relationship to Christ, just as Circumcision was a sign of the descendents of Abraham's relationship to the living God<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]So, when the Jewish peoples were under other authorities they didn't circumcise? Because I believe they were under Roman rule and still practicing this?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>What does the Roman rule have to do with the Theocracy? Because I'm under the rule of the U.S., should I cease from ordinances of my Christian faith?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But not every Jew was elect. That's your dilemma. My child was born into a covenant relationship as well, and therefore receives the sign. elect or not, just as Jewish males did.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>What dilemma? It isn't the sign that saves but the profession. The sign of circumcision was given to show that the cutting away of sin was required to be included into the house of faith. Baptism, shows the washing away of sin by Christ is required for inclusion into the body of Christ. Just as not all that were circumsized were of the house of faith, so also not all that are baptized, I agree. Our new relationship is effected by the washing of the Holy Spirit, not by water. Baptizing non-believers has no purpose and can be deceptive as I mentioned previously, some place all their hope in their baptism. Didn't the Israelites completely miss the point about circumcsion? The church is inadvertantly giving this same hope.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This isn't how it worked in the OT. Could you provide some scripture showing the discontinuity?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>All of scripture speaks of the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Church as descendents of spiritual Abraham. They are not identical. All of scripture shows the discontinuity.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, some scripture, stating this is the specific way?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Where does scripture show that baptism preceeded a profession of faith?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, this is opposite how it worked in the OT. All Jewish people were born into the covenant, but not all were elect. There are several arguments made here for the VISIBLE CHURCH vs. the TRUE CHURCH. I suggest reading them, or showing you can list the elect infallibly.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Answered above, the difference between a theocracy and the church.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I can show several baptisms where the recipients profession isn't recorded. That is the dilemma for you though. You honestly don't uphold believers baptism, because you cannot know a persons heart infallibly. Only God knows His elect. You uphold PROFESSORS BAPTISM. You (uh oh) presume upon that profession, the individuals possibility of true election. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I believe that a believer should be baptized is correct. Because we aren't certain who are believers doesn't negate our responsibility to administer the ordinance faithfully. <br><br>Finally, William, I appreciate all the questions you raised, but they do not change my view. I believe that the OT economy differs from the NT and that the rule of God over Israel is not the same as His rule over the TRUE church. I must confess though, the church today is where lost Israel was, so they are very much identical. The church has lost much of the truth today. I would never divide over Baptism, but I would not have my children baptized unless they requested it on profession of faith out of obedience to the word of God. Does this make us any less brothers in Christ? No, because baptism is the sign, not the effectual cause. I believe we all are growing in knowledge by the Holy Spirit, and I would never say my arguments outweigh yours. That would be presumption. I see no direct support for baptizing prior to professions of faith. That is it, plain and simple.<br><br>Praise Him,<br>Mike<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Hisalone Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
Mike,<br><br>I'm replying to you not with any vain notion that what I have to say will change your mind about paedobaptism; at least not at this point in time! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img] But rather, I simply want to correct some obvious errors you are espousing concerning a few things.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I stand by my original statement, nowhere does it speak of the baptism of anyone but believers. The infant was inserted because I was showing the absurbity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking.</font><hr></blockquote><p>This is one of the standard arguments used by Baptists and one that simply doesn't work because in several places it is said that entire "households" were baptized. The onus is upon Baptists to prove that "household" excludes children. Something which is impossible to do. Secondly paedobaptism is "assumed" because of the practice of bringing children into an"external" covenant relationship which was done for thousands of years prior to Christ is nowhere said to have been discontinued. And lastly, in the matter of the "absurdity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking." I hope you realize the absurdity, error and danger of this assertion. Normally, when speaking of adults, one is justified by faith alone, which undeniably must include and require an intellectual aspect. But surely, the essence of faith is not intellectual but spiritual. It is the soul itself that reaches out and takes hold of Christ. Faith is the fruit of regeneration, that sovereign, invisible working of the Spirit which is totally independent of the individual. Thus, although an infant, child, mentally handicapped, etc., cannot express faith, intellectually as an adult can, it exists nonetheless. Please don't interpret this to mean that all baptised infants have faith..... I certainly don't believe that and have adamantly argued to the contrary for years. But what I am saying is that don't make the opposite mistake and think that non-adults cannot have faith and be saved.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Baptism is a sign of the Christian's relationship to Christ, just as Circumcision was a sign of the descendents of Abraham's relationship to the living God.[quote]This is true, but only partially true. Baptists seem to be trapped in defining baptism subjectively at the expense of the most important aspect of it, that being objectively where God has sworn by Himself to save all who come to Him by faith, which was first signified and sealed in circumcision and now in baptism. Regardless of who receives baptism, it ALWAYS signifies God's faithfulness to keep His promise to those who believe in Christ. It may or may not apply to the individual who is baptized (subject), but it is always true in its significance in regard to the One from Whom salvation comes (object).[quote]What does the Roman rule have to do with the Theocracy?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Forgive me for using this quote to actually speak to a related issue which I have already addressed below in another direct reply to you. Circumcision did NOT belong to "Israel" as a nation. It was instituted by God and given to Abraham long before the nation of Israel even came into being. Was not Abraham given circumcision as a token of the faith which he had when he was yet childless? Did God not promise him that he would be the "father of many nations, which in the N.T. we learn that it was a promise that those of like faith would dwell in all the nations of the earth? Was not the promise of God to Abraham to him and "his seed", which is Christ and all who believe on Christ like Abraham? Thus the promise and the sign of faith was given to Abraham and the elect of Christ. At its institution, it had a spiritual significance and had nothing to do with a national significance or a Theocracy. Paul's emphasis in his epistles on justification by faith alone is immutably grounded in this truth; "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29).<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]All of scripture speaks of the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Church as descendents of spiritual Abraham. They are not identical. All of scripture shows the discontinuity.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Another unfortunate half-truth is found in this statement. Yes, the nation of Israel as a Theocracy is gone. Yes, there are discontinuities between the nation of Israel and the N.T. church. But what seems to be constantly overlooked is that "not all Israel is Israel"; i.e., within the nation of Israel there was the true Israel, which was and continues to be the Church (Grk: ekklesia=called out ones). Stephen refers to those true believers that lived in the O.T. the "church in the wilderness", (Acts 7:38). And Paul refers to the N.T. Church as the "Israel of God", (Gal 6:16). There is a clear continuity between the O.T. and N.T., in that the Church has always been one. The sign given to the O.T. CHURCH was circumcision which pointed forward to Christ. The sign given to the N.T. CHURCH is baptism which points back to Christ AND forward to His return.<br><br>Lastly, I stand with you and say that I have not and will not let the issue of baptism as held by many Baptists be a matter of disfellowship. I have accepted most all Baptists who have even petitioned for membership. But I have been excluded by nearly every Baptist when the situation was reversed. I find unwarranted schism on both sides and I have no hope that it will ever be resolved before Christ returns. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sad.gif" alt="sad" title="sad[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
Very graciously presented Pilgrim. I appreciate all that has been said and do not pretend to be dogmatically certain of my stance, only sharing my convictions. Both sides of the argument have valid points. At this stage I cannot with good conscience change my views because I believe the Baptist position more correct. A lot of the difference is the view of the Nation of Israel in relation to the Church. One was propagated by the flesh, the other by the Spirit. <br><br>God Bless<br>Mike
Hisalone Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This is one of the standard arguments used by Baptists and one that simply doesn't work because in several places it is said that entire "households" were baptized. The onus is upon Baptists to prove that "household" excludes children. Something which is impossible to do.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br>Pilgrim and Mike,<br><br>Both Baptists and Paedobaptists employ arguments from silence. The Baptist will say that nowhere does the Bible teach (i.e. the Scriptures are silent) that infants were included in household baptisms. The Paedobaptist will argue that nowhere is the baptism of infants forbidden in Scripture; the Scripture are silent on that matter too. However, an argument from silence can be construed as fallacious once an onus of proof is established. So, with Pilgrim, I agree that the onus of proof is on the Baptist because the Old Testament precedence is that the children of professing believers are to receive the sign of entrance into the visible people of God. Since this principle was never explicitly rescinded n Scripture (or by good and necessary inference from Scripture), the burden of proof to not include infants in a household baptism remains squarely upon Baptists. <br><br>When we come to the New Testament with a covenant eye, we would expect to see household baptism, which we do. I find it quite striking that after Pentecost we read of nine baptisms in the New Testament. It is safe to assume that Saul and the Ethiopian Eunuch had no children, and we know nothing about Simon Magus and Gaius. That leaves Lydia, Cornelius, Crispus, Stephanas, and the Philippian jailor; all of which were household baptisms. Now, this doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the covenantal view of baptism, but if there were ever corroborating evidence that should make us pause, I would think that this would be it. On the flip side, we don't have even one instance in the entire book of Acts where someone from a believing household came to faith and was then baptized. <br><br>I might add, when Peter preached his sermon in Acts chapter 2, he couched the promise of the gospel in the very structure of the Abrahamic covenent. The apostle stated, "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call." This to me was most striking when I first considered it as a Baptist. How, I asked myself, would the faithful among Israel who were familiar with the promise to Abraham and to his seed not have presented their infants for baptism without an explict instruction not to do so?<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]At this stage I cannot with good conscience change my views because I believe the Baptist position more correct. A lot of the difference is the view of the Nation of Israel in relation to the Church. One was propagated by the flesh, the other by the Spirit. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br>Mike,<br><br>Please consider that the promise to Abraham, which was accompanied by circumcision, preceded the nation of Israel by 430 years. This was huge when it first dawned on me. Circumcision had only spiritual significance for all of 430 years. God then formed his spiritual people into a nation. When the nation expired, God did not all of a sudden stop dealing with households as he did under Moses and well prior to Moses. Moreover, one could participate in the life of Israel without circumcision, which shows that circumcision even under Moses had more of a spiritual significance than an ethnic or national significance. An alien within Israel could hire out services; Israelites were to show compassion to such; aliens could glean with the rest of the poor in Israel; they were even under the protection of God (Deut. 10:18); the alien could share in the poor tithe; and in the Sabbatical year; he was entitled to the protection of the cities of refuge; they just were not allowed to partake of the Passover unless they had been circumcised. Accordingly, as noted, circumcision had spiritual significance first and foremost. (These thoughts with all their Scipture texts are presented in "Children of the Promise," written by Robert (Randy) Booth, and published by P&R.) BTW, Randy Booth was a baptist at one time, which leads me to my last point of reflection. <br><br>Please consider that it is rare for a Reformed Christian to move from a covenant view of baptism to a baptistic view, but it is extremely common to see people move in the other direction. This fact is not offered in an effort to persuade you, but with the hope that it might help you to continue to reflect more on this matter with a healthy fear and trembling. For what it's worth, my two pastors were both Baptist.<br><br>May God continue to bless you in your studies, and us all.<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)