The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question for my credo friends

<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The problem is, once you define the covenant in this manner in order to establish the scope of the lawful subjects for the sign of inclusion in that covenant, you cannot possibly administer it. You cannot possibly administer the sign of the covenant to only those who are members of the New Covenant inwardly, because you have not been given the ability to discern the heart.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The ability, or lack there of, to discern the heart is key. I believe there is a big difference with the Baptist unknowingly letting a hypocrite into a church through baptism, than a paedo willing allowing an unregenerate into the covenant by sprinkling. The issue, as you state, is one of knowing the heart, and the only thing that is visible is a person's confession and changed life conforming to Christ. <br><br>In addition, I desire to be textual. Both circumcision and baptism are ordinances that are connected to justifying faith, something that has mental assent, acting in response to grace, believing upon an actual object, that being Christ. This is something infants just cannot do. Even the Lutherans I have debated elsewhere recognize this problem, and in order to maintain their paedobaptism, introduce the notion of an infant having saving faith, either by proxy from his or her parents, or actual saving faith that is waiting to bud forth when a child can communicate. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Well, then you must be prepared to say that baptized hypocrites have some efficacious work done in their hearts, and that this allows you to view baptized hypocrites who later reject the covenant, as being able to be removed from the NC.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Like I stated above, I have no problem with that, because we do not know the heart. My duty has a Christian is to model scripture. Of course, the nature of hermeneutics plays a rather extensive role in all of this as Joe has pointed out, so our debate really lies there. Be that as it may, I find it more problematic to import onto baptism and the Lord's table some efficacious means of grace that the Bible doesn't. I find it even more problematic to engage in an ecclesiastical system that willing allows unregenerates to partake in the NC, just to maintain the continuity of a favored theology. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You see, appealing to the efficacious nature of the NC is an irrelevant thesis to this debate. The question is not about whether or not the promised blessings of the NC are only for the elect, that has always been the case, it comes down to whom God has told us to identify with the covenant community, which will always be a mixture of elect and reprobate members. Whom are we to include in this community? From the beginning it has been believers and their household and nothing in Scripture repeals or contradicts that overwhelming testimony.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I had just a moment to scan over your reply on Friday, along with another one from William before I had to leave for the day to take care of some family business. Over the weekend, I glanced over the various handful of texts in Acts that speak about believers and their households. The ones that seem to be key (I would imagine there may be more that I have overlooked), such as Acts 10;44-48; 11:16-17; 16:31,32,34; 18:8, all record that those in the household believed (exercised mental assent) and that the recipients in the household heard, understood, believed and were baptised. How can an infant do this? Moreover, the Holy Spirit fell upon all of Cornelius's house. Are we to say that any infants present spoke in tongues and manifested the gifts of the spirit? <br>On the contrary, I believe what the Bible teaches in regards to the efficacious nature of the NC is relevant, because those who are in the NC have a changed heart and Christ is their mediator. Granted, the NT speaks of false teachers, hypocrites and reprobates that are identified with God's elect, but the writers of scripture are clear to point out their scandalous character in relation to those who are truly apart of the NC. <br>Furthermore, your idea of those whom God has told us to identify with the covenant community is more of an import from the OT due to your system of theological continuity. It really is an argument from inference by reading into the "believers and their household" passages the possibility of infants. The text doesn't say either way whether or not infants were present, but there is enough surrounding information in the record to draw the proper conclusion that those in the household were hearing, believing and getting baptised. To me, that doesn't look to be infants. <br><br>Fred