Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 3,329
Joined: September 2003
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,805
Posts55,002
Members970
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,486
Tom 4,565
chestnutmare 3,329
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,870
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 18
Pilgrim 11
John_C 3
Recent Posts
Did Paul go to Spain
by Tom - Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:45 AM
The Incorruptible God
by Pilgrim - Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:04 AM
Religion and Politics
by Anthony C. - Sun Jul 14, 2024 3:52 PM
Guns and the Population
by Tom - Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:11 PM
Lex Rex
by Tom - Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:26 PM
The Real Evidence about Scripture and Homosexual Practice
by Pilgrim - Mon Jul 01, 2024 6:40 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
#13651 Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:02 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Richard in another discussion thread said this: I understand that as a member of an American Presbyterian church such as the OPC that your church order would partake of much of the western culture. But there is no biblical basis for baptizing the infants and not also baptizing the wife of a man who professes Christ. Custom, I understand. But the Scripture, of course, does not make such an assertion. Acts 8:12 is vague on the subject and Acts 16:15 deals specifically with a woman who seems to be the head of a household for whatever reason. So, I don't see a biblical basis for withholding baptism from a wife. It is interesting to me that American paedos will use 1 Cor. 7:14 to justify the teaching of paedobaptism, but will not use the same passage to justify the baptism of a spouse.

Now I understand the reasoning (although I disagree with it) for baptizing infants even if there is but one believing person in the household. However, I must say that I can't see the reasoning from scripture or the Westminster Confession that an unbelieving spouse should be baptized because the head of the household has been baptized.

Also Richard I'd like an explanation with respect to Lydia in Acts 16:14-15. She apparently was the head of the household. Now I can't see that she was married but let us suppose that she was, does this mean since she was the head her husband (who may have been unbelieving) was baptized also? Does this mean we are to baptize unbelieving husbands?

Please elucidate.

#13652 Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:54 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
PrestorJohn said:
Now I understand the reasoning (although I disagree with it) for baptizing infants even if there is but one believing person in the household. However, I must say that I can't see the reasoning from scripture or the Westminster Confession that an unbelieving spouse should be baptized because the head of the household has been baptized.

The reasoning is identical. The head of the household is precisely that -- a covenantal head. If he should decide to move his family from Texas to Indiana or Michigan, the spouse and children my object, but at the end of the day they go. Similarly when he changes his religion from paganism or some other form of idolatry to the true religion, he does so not only for himself but also for all his family.

Quote
Also Richard I'd like an explanation with respect to Lydia in Acts 16:14-15. She apparently was the head of the household. Now I can't see that she was married but let us suppose that she was, does this mean since she was the head her husband (who may have been unbelieving) was baptized also? Does this mean we are to baptize unbelieving husbands?

In my opinion, a woman is never a head of a household in which there is a husband present. She may have significant teaching and child-rearing responsibilites (and does at the church I pastor), such as Eunice and Lois did (2 Tim. 1:5). But there is no reason to maintain that she "automatically" takes the place of the husband in a covenantally structured family. So, when I said "for whatever reason," I was contemplating divorce or widowhood. I was not suggesting that Lydia may have been head of a household in which a husband was present. Further, in the same epistle in which 1 Cor. 7:14 appears, we have the clear teaching that the husband is the head of the wife (not just the children). But if the husband is the head of the wife, then the wife is not and cannot be the head of the husband. Of course, being the cads and curmudgeons that we are, Paul also found it important to explain that headship does not mean tyranny (1 Cor. 11:2-16).

Did that elucidate fairly?

Quick question in return: how do you think paedobaptists should deal with the commandment God gave to Abraham not only to circumcise Ishmael and Isaac (and his natural-born children), but also to circumcise his household servants? I realize you are not a paedobaptist and so this is not really your difficulty, but how do you think we should handle it? Do you not see the elegance of dealing with households rather than simply "infants?"

#13653 Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:00 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Richard:

You said in your post on this subject:

Quote
Similarly when he changes his religion from paganism or some other form of idolatry to the true religion, he does so not only for himself but also for all his family.

Unfortunately, your overly broad interpretaion of the nature of the covenant, in my opinion, disregards, and in fact contradicts, another command of scripture and thus, does not stand the test of the analogy of the faith, which is that in order to establish a Biblical Truth, or doctrine, on any given subject one must reconcile all the pertinant verses on that subject.

One such verse which your statement on the covenantal nature of the Husband as head of the household contradicts scripture is the following:

Quote
Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

Here children are told to obey their parents when such commands are in agreement with the Lord's teaching, which is obviously not the case if their parents tell them to worship some pagan idol as you cite in your example.

Surely, I have misunderstood the meaning of your post?

In Him,

Gerry

#13654 Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:20 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Gerry,

Quote
Surely, I have misunderstood the meaning of your post?

I'm not sure if you misunderstood or if I was simply not clear. But in either event, please allow me to clarify now. Nobody -- not covenant head, policeman, husband, magistrate, judge, minister, etc. -- has the authority to command us to do anything unlawful. That means that he does not have the authority to turn either himself or his family to paganism or idolatry. But he does, as covenant head of the family, have the authority to turn them from paganism and idolatry to serve the true and living God (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9). Of course, when I refer to "American culture" as I did in the previous thread, one of the things I intended by that is the American idea that the magistrate cannot commit his nation to the religion of the true and living God. I think that is wrong biblically (though I also acknowledge that this is such a minority position in this country as to be miniscule).

Here is a worship service that indicates my basic view of baptism.

#13655 Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:01 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Quick question in return: how do you think paedobaptists should deal with the commandment God gave to Abraham not only to circumcise Ishmael and Isaac (and his natural-born children), but also to circumcise his household servants? I realize you are not a paedobaptist and so this is not really your difficulty, but how do you think we should handle it? Do you not see the elegance of dealing with households rather than simply "infants?"

Quick response (keep in mind I could give you a slow response but I need to ponder much <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) I think that the paedobaptists should realize that in the economy of the new covenant that the command to baptize households means those that profess faith and their children. And it doesn't mean to baptize everyone indiscriminately just because the head of the household believes.

Speaking as a baptist I would maintain that the economy of the new covenant being a better covenant than the old calls for a different administration of that covenant to wit only those that profess faith should be baptized.

yours,

#13656 Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Speaking as a baptist I would maintain that the economy of the new covenant being a better covenant than the old calls for a different administration of that covenant to wit only those that profess faith should be baptized.
I have had the honor of speaking to Dr. Roger Nichole (a Baptist and visiting Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary) for hours concerning baptism. We have gone through all the Scripture and theology and have basically stalemated (like we do here). Your statement above is where we ended up from his point of view. We meet again soon and we are contemplating the issue of where is the proof of that "new administration" in baptism? Additionally, what is meant by "better" (a new administration, a continuing covenant more fully revealed, etc.)? So, how do you maintain your view?


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13657 Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:34 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
PrestorJohn said:
I think that the paedobaptists should realize that in the economy of the new covenant that the command to baptize households means those that profess faith and their children. And it doesn't mean to baptize everyone indiscriminately just because the head of the household believes.

Can you give me an example of "household" meaning that in any other context? In other words, it seems that you are possibly leaving yourself open to the charge of special pleading when it comes to the subject of baptism and households.

Quote
Speaking as a baptist I would maintain that the economy of the new covenant being a better covenant than the old calls for a different administration of that covenant to wit only those that profess faith should be baptized.

Yes, I understand. I've read both sides of the issue. And I would say that someone like Paul Jewett, for example, makes as good a case as can be made for the idea of credobaptism. I don't contemn (or condemn) your pov. But I do think it is important to demonstrate the "why" of these changes in adminstration that you propose. Do such changes advance the covenant of grace or do they retard it? In what ways do they advance or retard? These are the kinds of questions I'm proposing. If children should not be baptized (even though they had been circumcised for something like 2000 years at the inauguration of the new covenant economony), is it not passing strange that nothing was said to that effect?

#13658 Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:27 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Richard:

Thanks for the response and clarification. I'm glad to see I was mistaken in my understanding of what you're post was saying.

In Him,

Gerry

#13659 Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:37 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Richard asked of Prestor John:
Can you give me an example of "household" meaning that in any other context? In other words, it seems that you are possibly leaving yourself open to the charge of special pleading when it comes to the subject of baptism and households.

Richard I don't think I am special pleading here when it comes to the issue of households being baptized. When I look at the examples that I have of the households being baptized I see a pattern there.

Quote
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. They of the circumcision who believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was also poured out on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in other languages and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, "Can any man forbid the water, that these who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we should not be baptized?" He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay some days. (Acts 10:44-48)

and brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." They spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house. He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was immediately baptized, he and all his household. He brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his household, having believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34)

He departed there, and went into the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:7-8)

Richard in all of those accounts it tells me that those of the household who heard the Word of God believed and because of that belief were baptized. Now I know that "all" doesn't necessarily mean all but contextually I must say that for those households it does. So to me it means that not only the head of the household believed but also those under the head of the household too. All believed and they believed because they heard the Word of God. Therefore my logical conclusion is that it wasn't because the head of the household believed that the wife was baptized. But it was because the wife believed along with the entire household that they were baptized.

yours,

J_Edwards #13660 Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:44 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe I'm going to answer you, but I've got to set down and do some thinking. Between you and Richard this poor wee baptist's mind has been stretched a mite taut. Your causing neural synapses to fire that had wanted to stay dormant so being a baptist I must first go soak my head and then when cooled answer you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

#13661 Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:21 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Your causing neural synapses to fire that had wanted to stay dormant so being a baptist I must first go soak my head and then when cooled answer you.
See this proves that dunking is bad for you. Had you only been sprinkled the synapses would still "fire." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13662 Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:39 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

#13663 Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:45 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
While I am sure Richard will reply to you I would like to briefly respond here as well. Oikos is employed in a phrase that runs throughout the Old Testament and right through the New Testament. Of course, it means household. It begs the question, "Was baptism administered in the New Testament according to the Abrahamic household model or according to the modern "Baptist" model which emphasizes baptism as an individual and adult decision"? I will let Richard address that.

But, it also begs for its identity in family blessing and cursings? Is there similarity here?

Reading both the Old and New Testaments we see the continuity of family blessing and cursing. What about, "And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham" (Luke 19:9). This is found in the story about Zacchaeus the tax collector. No other member of Zacchaeus' family is mentioned in the story, yet Jesus doesn't say that salvation had come to just Zacchaeus, but that salvation had come to Zacchaeus' household. And what about, "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" (2 Tim 1:16). Onesiphorus had served Paul so the Apostle invoked a blessing upon his whole house. While neither of these New Testament examples speak directly to the issue of baptism, they do in fact speak to the issue of family and household blessings. Blessings (which baptism certainly is) and cursings had effects on whole families! Adam is a prime example. The whole human race is of the seed of Adam and ALL fell in Adam. The curse also fell upon his seed (his family) that had no direct accountability in his personal sin. You can trace this all the way through the Old Testament….and the New. Thus, here we see a continuity in family blessings and cursing.

Additionally, the salvation of the household is a normal Bible pattern, not the salvation of just independent individuals (John 4:53; Acts 10:2, 11:14; Matt 10:12-14).
Quote
Hebrews 11:7-9 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house [did they all believe?, 1 Pet 3:20-21]; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with [his family] Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
In general, there are family blessing and cursings. In general, the New Testament baptismal practice (yes, a blessing to those who are elect and a curse to those who are …) was the baptism of an entire household at one time and not the baptism of individuals one by one. Moreover, these references to receiving the covenant sign of baptism are couched in similar language as the references to Abraham's reception of the covenant sign. Thus, IMHO the Old Testament pattern of giving the covenant sign of salvation to the whole household, including infants (i.e. eight day old Isaac), carries right over into the New Testament. Of course, this is only one point in the totality of the whole of the argument, but sufficient enough for our purposes here, IMHO.

IMHO, Dispensational Theology (DT) appears to be at the root of much of the mis-understanding of baptismal issues. If and when it is replaced with a proper hermeneutic of Covenant Theology (CT) a better understanding of the issues will arise. What I do find amazing is that the majority of individuals that are of the CT view have studied the DT view, but very few in the DT view seem to have studied the CT view—or maybe they have and they have all become CTers <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13664 Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:47 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
Prestor writes:

Richard in all of those accounts it tells me that those of the household who heard the Word of God believed and because of that belief were baptized. Now I know that "all" doesn't necessarily mean all but contextually I must say that for those households it does. So to me it means that not only the head of the household believed but also those under the head of the household too. All believed and they believed because they heard the Word of God. Therefore my logical conclusion is that it wasn't because the head of the household believed that the wife was baptized. But it was because the wife believed along with the entire household that they were baptized.

Actually not all household baptisms recorded in the Bible tell us who were included nor whether faith was present in all the members of the household. If it were that cut and dried there would be no discussion.

Acts 16:14,15 tells about a certain woman named Lydia who believed. We read that she and her household were baptised, but it doesn't tell us who her family members included nor if they had faith. Also in the story of the Phillippian Jailer which is recorded later in that same chapter we read Paul and Silas's reply to his question about salvation. In verse 31 they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." This statement came before his family had heard the word.

Then in verse 32 we read, "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." My point is simply that the promise was given to him before they heard the word. In addition we don't know the ages of the individuals in his household.

In I Corinthians 1 Paul talks about some individuals he baptized and one household. In verse 16 he mentions the household of Stephanas. Yet what do we know about this household. My point is that we don't have a complete picture to support your presupposition.

Throughout redemptive history it has often been God's practice to save entire family units at the same time (Acts 2:38,39; 11:14; 16:31; Gen. 17:7-14). The household baptisms of Acts are striking examples of this (10:47, 48; 16:31-33; cf I Cor. 1:16). Such household baptisms were apparently standard practice.

In as much as these examples tell us God can and does choose to save entire families it leaves a lot unsaid. My concern from a paedobaptist's point of view questions the adult members of these households. I'm sure as a credobaptist you want each individual regardless of age to believe before they are baptized. Regardless the promise is there in these verses prior to the fulfillment.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
J_Edwards #13665 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:16 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Joe,

It has been my experience that many Credobaptists have grave concerns over the language used by many Paedobaptists, in that on the surface, it DOES appear that baptism and salvation are synonymous. Thus, to baptize an infant or an adult, in the case of Richard's view, connotes that salvation is infallibly promised and/or some salvific blessings are conferred. This concern is not confined to Credobaptists, as I too have found much to object to when I read such statements that have come from Paedobaptists. The problem I see here is that when we read, for example, "salvation has come to this house", one could wrongly assume that it means that each and every member of that household was saved. Or, that salvation would eventually come to each member of that household. I think this idea that "God generally saves entire families" only serves to exacerbate the chasm which separates Paedos and Credos. I personally find no biblical evidence that God saves "households". But contrariwise, when I read the O.T. record, it would seem that paradigmatically, the exact opposite is true. We read of this with the promise to Abraham, there was a bifurcation of that family (Isaac and Ismael). And again with Jacob and Esau. Actually, we see this even from the first with the children of Adam and Eve; i.e., Abel and Cain and again in the household of Noah.

What I believe is true is exemplified in the words of Peter:

Acts 2:37-39 (ASV) Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.


Salvation is promised to 1) those who repent and believe upon Christ, and 2) as many as the Lord our God shall call. These two elements determine salvation; one being God's sovereign and infallible call and man's responsibility to respond to that call, which is the fruit of regeneration. There is no universal, infallible promise of salvation to households. The promise of God extends to those who belong to those who fall within the two qualifications of, 1) efficacious calling and 2) repentance and faith.

Now, this "individualism" is no less biblical than is the practice of baptizing "groups" (households). And in my view, this would include ONLY believing adults and their children. Although they do go hand in hand, despite the objections of Credobaptists, they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the promise of salvation.

Granted, if both sides would acknowledge the verity of what I hold to be true, this would not remove all the differences that exist between the two camps. But I do believe it would remove some of the differences and thus bring about a more irenic relationship between them.

That's my [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
J_Edwards #13666 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:26 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Joe said: See this proves that dunking is bad for you. Had you only been sprinkled the synapses would still "fire." :grin"
So, Joe are you confessing that your synapses aren't firing since YOU were DUNKED too! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim #13667 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:30 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said: Granted, if both sides would acknowledge the verity of what I hold to be true, this would not remove all the differences that exist between the two camps. But I do believe it would remove some of the differences and thus bring about a more irenic relationship between them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Yes, I agree and BTW great post! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim #13668 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
I agree with you that luggage (language) has allot to do with the issue. But, I also see the language I used in the New Testament--the salvation of households. IMHO it is phrased as such in the New Testament not for our confusion, but for our edification in that God desires us to understand that his blessing are "family" in nature when ...... I know you know the arguments.

I believe we can get out selves into trouble, if we lose the language. I think it is better to keep the language of the Old/New Testament and then more fully expand upon its meaning. It means something to say "salvation come to this house" and apparently God himself did not desire us to lose that emphasis. IMHO it is more correct to change our doctrines, and explanations thereof, to match the text of Scripture then to attempt to change the Scripture to match our doctrines....

Of course, individualism is a point in both the Old and New Testaments as I said, "Additionally, the salvation of the household is a normal Bible pattern, not the salvation of just independent individuals ....". I am of course using the NT terminology from the examples given above. The point using the terms in the NT was to draw out their correct meaning...revealing that baptism is covenantal in scope... THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE IN SCRIPTURE--don't throw them out!!!! My emphasis was to make a specific point on family blessings and cursing. This was the stated intent (it also begs for its identity in family blessing and cursings?) of the post and should be interpreted as such.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13669 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:43 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
So, Joe are you confessing that your synapses aren't firing since YOU were DUNKED too!
I wasn't even aware I had any synapses as I have been dunked more than once. The title of song: The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia, fits well.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13670 Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:56 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe,
Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the issue of divided families is also taught in the NT. That is not to say that God doesn't often work in whole families, for He certainly does, but sometimes He doesn't.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10: 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved...34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

John 7 2 Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. 3 So his brothers [2] said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

#13671 Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
I agree with you of course. Divided families are also taught in the OT as well--as I cited in my post above w/Noah.... But, do you have an example in Scripture of a child within the covenant not being circumcised/baptized, because they are from a divided family? If there is a beleiver...there should be a baptism is the example I see....(I am speaking of infants here....).

Though there may be divided families after the fact, this does not change the eternal covenant of God ........ NO WHERE do we see the covenant of circumcision NOT applied to the covenant family: not in a (1) possible future falling away, nor, in a (2) possible dividing of the family later. What we do see is family circumcision in obedience the covenant God gave us. What we do see in covenantal loyalty.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13672 Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I wholeheartedly agree! Maybe we can rename our board "PCT"

Paedobaptists and Credobaptists Together <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Not that it has any parallel to the horrendous ECT...


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
J_Edwards #13673 Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:20 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Good question Joe!
Well, we do have Timothy who was half Jewish.
Quote
Acts 16:3
Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
We know he wasn't circumcised until later, and we assume he had to be baptized, but the question is when. If God had told us this maybe we wouldn't have anything to disagree on. Would his mother have baptized him as an infant when his father was not a believer if she hadn't circumcised him? I don't know!

J_Edwards #13674 Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:04 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe,

Your response is probably sufficient for everything that PrestorJohn proposed. Of course, I do not deny that the households "believed." I simply have a less individualistic view of what that means. When papa became a Christian the entire family became Christians. They together professed Christ; together attended upon the ordinances of public worship; together learned to walk in the ways of God; and together rejoiced in the gospel.

Please understand that while I'm responding to you, my responses are primarily intended as additions to your response to PrestorJohn. But I would add that in the case of the youngsters that profession was not necessarily verbal; and they attended upon the ordinances at first at least because papa did. They learned to walk in the ways of God and as they grew in stature, they also grew in wisdom and righteousness. While their rejoicing may have been childish at first, as they matured, so did their rejoicing.

After all, they are not just Christian babies; they are also baby Christians! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Wes #13675 Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:05 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Wes,

The only "change" I would make in your post is that I would replace "often" with "usually" or even "normally." God has usually saved people in the lines of generations.

#13676 Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:15 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
If God had told us this maybe we wouldn't have anything to disagree on. Would his mother have baptized him as an infant when his father was not a believer if she hadn't circumcised him? I don't know!
Yes, Timothy was half and half (Acts 16:1). His mother, grandmother, and Timothy himself were most probably converted during Paul’s first missionary journey (2 Tim 1:5), by Paul himself—though his mother and grandmother had a great influence upon him….. We see his conversion IMHO in Paul’s ministry because of Paul’s reference to him as his ‘spiritual child” (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2). Since, all this happened IMHO on the 1st missionary journey the timing would be very close to his mother’s conversion, et. al.….

Additionally, Timothy had learned the Jewish Scriptures (2 Tim 3:14-15, O.T.) from his childhood forth (though his father was a Gentile) thus making me think he was baptized very early on at/after his mother's conversion. Additonally he (1) was not circumcised at 8 days of age, (2) there is no record of either his conversion or baptism later in church records, and (3) his name “Timotheus” itself means “honoring or worshipping god” (originally a heathen name, but adopted by early Christians and Jews with changed reference to “the God”).

PS: Jewish tradition has it that there were "checkers" at the door of the Temple who would yes, check you, to insure you would not pollute the holy place, being non-circumcised. Thus, the purpose of the circumcision was to gain access and literally be all things to all men.....


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13677 Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
Joe lovingly chided:
I believe we can get out selves into trouble, if we lose the language. I think it is better to keep the language of the Old/New Testament and then more fully expand upon its meaning.
Forgive me if I gave the impression that I wanted to throw out or circumvent the language of the N.T. As you know, I believe that every jot and tittle is inspired and thus not one word is expendable or should be ignored. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My intent was to "expand upon its meaning". When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold). The way I understand this phrase would be akin to saying that "salvation has come to Florida" when someone there believes. Now, of course, the N.T. doesn't recognize Florida as part of the covenantal structure! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> But, I think the illustration hopefully goes to show the point. There are many external blessings which a household is given, which overflow and are due to having a believer in the house, of which you know quite well. And to make one other point about language, I would strongly reject the description of covenant children as "little Christians"! For it ASSUMES their salvation when that type of language is used, when there is no biblical warrant for it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

So again, I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was trying to ignore the biblical language.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Wes #13678 Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:05 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Wes

I am hesitant to get involved in this discussion, because of my limited knowledge as compared to others on this forum. But nothing ventured nothing gained.

The case of Lydia’s household is inconclusive. There is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position. That of course doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no infants in the household, but if I was a paedobaptist, I don’t think I would use this passage to support my case.

The account of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34) is probably the best possibility for baptizing infants in the household baptism. But as we see in verse 34 both he and his household believed in God.
Admittedly some versions (RSV, NEB) read like the household rejoiced with him because he had found faith. But even if that is correct, we have a problem with infants rejoicing. Though infants can detect joy in a household, can they rejoice because their father has found faith in God?

I could say more about that but as far as I can tell these cases in the book of Acts actually lend support for confessor’s baptism.

Tom

J_Edwards #13679 Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

I am feeling a little bit venturesome today. I just hope not too venturesome, because I am no match when it comes to education on these matters. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />
If my knowledge comes to an end, regardless of whether or not I agree with you or not, I will bow out.

So be easy on me, big guy. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

My understanding of what you are saying is that basically that this matter must be interpreted through the eyes of the Abrahamic Covenant. Is that correct?

If so, then it is my understanding as Dr. Fred Malone put it.
“However, it is my belief that the fuller revelation of the New Covenant must define how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in it, rather than letting the Abrahamic Covenant interpret the New Covenant revelation of its fulfillment. It is the principle by describing the relationship between the testaments with the little rhyme:
The New is the Old concealed
The Old is the New revealed.”

Tom

Pilgrim #13680 Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:58 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Pilgrim

When I read Acts 2:38,39 & 41, as far as children were concerned, or anyone else for that matter. I see only those in the crowd who recieved Peter's word were baptised.

Tom

#13681 Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Hi Antikathistas,
I wonder if you would care to substantiate that statement that God has usually saved people in lines of generations? It does not seem to ring very true in the Scriptures. The children of Eli (1Sam 2:12), Samuel (1Sam 8:3), David (2Sam 13), Jehoshaphat (2Kings 8:16-18), Hezekiah (2Chron 33:2), Josiah (2Chron 36:5) do not seem to have inherited their fathers' piety.

Nor did it hold true in Geneva after the Reformation. In the mid-18th Century, the French philosopher, Rouseau wrote;

'It is asked of the ministers of the church of Geneva if Jesus Christ be God. They dare not answer. It is asked if He were a mere man. They are embarrassed and will not say they think so. ....... Oh! Genevans, these Gentlemen, your ministers, in truth are very singular people! They do not know what they believe, or what they do not believe. They do not even know what they would wish to appear to believe. Their only manner of establishing their faith is, to attack the faith of others.' (sounds a bit like the Church of England today! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />)

And who is it who is reputed to have been the first to have endorsed Unitarianism in Geneva? None other than the son of the great Francis Turretine, when he was Professor of Theology. Not much sign of 'generational salvation' there either!

Reference household baptisms, my wife and I were converted at much the same time and were (re-)baptized together. Had our children been a little older they might have been converted and baptized with us. In times of revival it has not been uncommon for whole families to be converted within just a few days of each other. The 1st Century AD was nothing if not a revival.

Blessings to all,
Steve

Last edited by grace2U; Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:14 PM.
Tom #13682 Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Well Fred would be right except for one very serious error. Paul used the O.C. to explain the new! Even Hebrews shows the fulfilling of the O.C. in the New. Look at Hebrews 11, where does the author begin on the issue of "faith?" Thus, the proper hermeneutic is to use the Old to explain the New—a principle taught in every seminary I know of (most of them Baptist), except when it comes to baptism & eschatology—interesting!

Dispensationalism basically looks at the Covenants and see them as individual trees. Each tree then may have some of the other items of the other covenants en-grafted in on a case by case basis, but the covenants themselves are separate. The trees grow until they reach their full scope of purpose and then are replaced with another.

Covenant theology sees ONE tree that has different things added to it for further revelation from era to era (w/epochal adjustments). Covenant theology sees more of a continuity in the covenants then does the dispensationist. Covenant theology sees God revealing His master plan more and more throughout the ages as opposed to the dispensationist who sees it constantly being replaced. For the paedo, the progression of the Covenant in time begins in the Old Testament and ends up in its fulfillment (not replacement) in the New Testament—a proper hermeneutic.

Thus, the hermeneutics of the camps are not equivalent and they end up with different views not only in baptism, but eschatology, et. al. You can begin with the middle of the book and look backward and you will most always end up credo or you can begin at the beginning of the book and you will almost always end up paedo. So, I guess it boils down to how you learn to read. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim #13683 Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold).
I agree.....and this is where I desired PJ to go with it. But, the NT is very strict here not JUST saying that salvation came to an individual, but that it came to his house. IMHO this is for a specific reason to reveal that the covenant came to the house, not just the individual. As you said, not that everyone in the house is saved--that would be utter nonsense, but that certain blessing do come upon the household. What blessings IMHO are clearly seen in the OT/NT.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Tom #13684 Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
"The New is the Old concealed
The Old is the New revealed.”

Hey, brother, shouldn't that be:
"The Old is the New concealed
The New is the Old revealed.”


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
J_Edwards #13685 Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:06 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

I want to think a little on what you said before commenting.
But, I will say this. Dr. Fred Malone believes in CT, he is diametrically opposed to Dispensationalism.
He is a member of Founders, I am sure you have heard of them. Pilgrim speaks quite highly of them.
www.founders.org

Tom

Tom #13686 Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Tom,

I use to be in Founder's Conference of the SBC myself. Roger Nicole, Th.D., Ph.D., D.D .(Contributing Editor to the Founders Journal), lays out a similar argument, but agrees with my assessment of a proper hermetical principle. Nichole uses a little phrase that "it is grace, not race" in a debate he had with R.C. Sproul on the issue. Though one may claim to believe in Covenant Theology different individuals believe in different continuities of it...Fred makes the first tree the NT Tree and then adds branches of the OT as he sees fit in his hermeneutic. Here he is dispensational not covenantal.

#13687 Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
Antikathistas said:
Wes,

The only "change" I would make in your post is that I would replace "often" with "usually" or even "normally." God has usually saved people in the lines of generations.

I would certainly agree with that change. Of course there are many exceptions which could be sighted but all we need to do is follow the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 to see that the Lord does keep his promises working through the offspring of Abraham.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Tom #13688 Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
Tom said:
Wes

The case of Lydia’s household is inconclusive. There is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position. That of course doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no infants in the household, but if I was a paedobaptist, I don’t think I would use this passage to support my case.

Unfortunately you missed my point. What I wrote was, "Actually not all household baptisms recorded in the Bible tell us who were included nor whether faith was present in all the members of the household. If it were that cut and dried there would be no discussion.

Acts 16: 11:14,15 tells about a certain woman named Lydia who believed. We read that she and her household were baptised, but it doesn't tell us who her family members included nor if they had faith." My comments were in response to Prestor's suggestion that in each of these households all the members had faith. Unfortunately we can't substantiate that from the limited information we have. I tend to agree with Pilgrim's quote: "When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold)."


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Tom #13689 Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:03 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Tom,

Acts 2:39 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." Peter proclaims that salvation through God's Messiah is promised to the Jews, to their children, and to all those who are far off (i.e., the Gentiles, Eph. 2:11-13). Here again is the message of Acts - the gospel is for Jews and Gentiles. Even though only those present may have received baptism that day the promise extended to their children and beyond.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
grace2U #13690 Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:33 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Reference household baptisms, my wife and I were converted at much the same time and were (re-)baptized together. Had our children been a little older they might have been converted and baptized with us. In times of revival it has not been uncommon for whole families to be converted within just a few days of each other. The 1st Century AD was nothing if not a revival.

That's some serious special pleading for the term OIKOS. I also don't see any Biblical evidence that any of these household conversions took "days", and this certainly wasn't the norm, again. I'll ask you, is your entire household christian? Or were your infants "clean slates"?


God bless,

william

Wes #13691 Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:40 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
How would a first century A.D. Jew undersand the passage? I somehow don't see any clarification, anywhere, in scripture changing this understanding of how children are included. To a Jewish person, household meant something. Notice how Peter compares the old to the new, yet still doesn't mention this discontinuity? Interesting to me. I have read an argument from silence, but can't remember it exactly.


God bless,

william

#13692 Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
The argument from silence is powerful. The Jews were use to a salvation for them and their family. When they crossed over the line to Christianity one would expect to see a great argument somewhere in Scripture that their children were no longer in the covenant, if they were under the credo view. Since, no argument exists in Scripture the argument from silence states that the children must still be in the covenant and thus a paedo view existed in their day. There is thus a continuity in the covenant.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13693 Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:03 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Hello AF,
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but neither I nor my wife come from a Christian background. We hope prayerfully for the conversion of our children, knowing that that the New Birth is 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'. However, salvation could certainly be said to have come to our house when we were converted.

The biblical pattern is clearly laid out in Acts 16:25ff. The jailor is saved, he brings Paul and Silas back to his house where they preach the Gospel to his 'oikos' who also come to faith (v34). These things do happen in times of revival. Now suppose that this man had had a 16 year-old son who was a devout follower of the god, Mithras and refused to become a Christian. Are you suggesting that he would have been held down, kicking and screaming, while Paul baptized him, and that the jailor would then have, 'rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household'? I don't think so.

Wes mentioned the genealogy of Matt 1 as a 'godly descent'. It will surely be enough to note that Rehoboam (v7), Joram (v8), Ahaz (v9) and Manasseh (v10) are all included. Also, what evidence is there that, say, Eliud (v15) was a godly man?

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13694 Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:17 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Steve:

I find myself in complete agreement with you when you state:
Quote
the New Birth is 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'.

I also find it relevant that you bring up the issue of the nature of revival in the context of the scriptural references to the conversion and, subsequent, (subseqent seems important to me for some reason) baptisms.

I also appreciate your pointing out the error of salvation normally or usually in generational lines. Yes, the Lord does honor His promises to hear the prayers and honor the efforts of parents who bring their children up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord", but He does it, like all else he does, SOVEREIGNLY. Essau and Jacob, it seems to me should be our teacher, as I believe it was meant to be, in this matter.

In Him,

Gerry

#13695 Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:48 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
Gerry wrote:

I also appreciate your pointing out the error of salvation normally or usually in generational lines. Yes, the Lord does honor His promises to hear the prayers and honor the efforts of parents who bring their children up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord", but He does it, like all else he does, SOVEREIGNLY. Essau and Jacob, it seems to me should be our teacher, as I believe it was meant to be, in this matter.

After reading your comments and Steve's it apprears you believe children that come from a Christian household who trust the Lord for their salvation are the exception rather than the norm. Certainly many exceptions could be sighted but I wouldn't go to that extreme. This makes me wonder how many of the members who participate on this discussion board came to the Lord from unbelieving families.

I think this can have an impact of one's view. For example I happen to believe that my paternal Grandparents loved the Lord, my parents loved the Lord, my children love the Lord and recently my oldest grandchild made her public profession of faith declaring her love for the Lord. Each of these lives as I've observed them has given evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. As I've said before there are many exceptions to this rule but I believe it is God's primary plan to work within covenant households. His promises were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Isaac was Abraham's child of promise and even today I believe we need to look at our children in this way. Trusting that God will bring our children to repentance and faith even as He has us by His marvelous grace.

Certainly this is not a matter of the will of man nor of the flesh but when God is active in a person's life the evidences of God's grace will have impact on all those who grow up in that household. This provides a means of grace whereby the children are exposed to the gospel and discipleship through a believing parent. This doesn't insure the children's salvation but it is a means the Spirit uses along with a families participation in the life of the church. As you know the gospel is the power of God to salvation and He makes this known through the foolishness of preaching. We bring our children under this teaching and pray that the Spirit will work in their hearts. Praise God He does!


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Wes #13696 Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:42 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Well stated Wes. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13697 Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:29 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Wes,
I'm glad for you, brother, and I'm sure you're on your knees regularly thanking God for his goodness and mercy to you and your family. As for me, my maternal grandfather belonged to a Unitarian church <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sigh.gif" alt="" /> and that's as good as it gets. I know no one at all in my family or my wife's who is/was what you or I would call a Christian.

So what do your story and my story prove? Just this: 'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit' (John 3:8).

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13698 Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:35 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
The biblical pattern is clearly laid out in Acts 16:25ff. The jailor is saved, he brings Paul and Silas back to his house where they preach the Gospel to his 'oikos' who also come to faith (v34).

No, I don't think the passage requires your interpretation. Please show how it does, and how this one passage is the norm for all OIKOS?

Quote
These things do happen in times of revival.

I asked for something evidential for that being the case for that passage? Or for that being the "norm" for the passages using OIKOS?

Quote
Now suppose that this man had had a 16 year-old son who was a devout follower of the god, Mithras and refused to become a Christian. Are you suggesting that he would have been held down, kicking and screaming, while Paul baptized him, and that the jailor would then have, 'rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household'? I don't think so.

Ant scripture? How about something from the customs of the time? I think you are seeing the passage through modern family practices, where kids have 'rights'. Could you offer something more than a possibility?

Now, I want to know how you defend your definition of OIKOS, meaning, "only believers in the household? Please do not give me only the NT referencse, Iam a whole Bible Christian.


God bless,

william

Wes #13699 Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:01 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Wes:

You stated:

Quote
After reading your comments and Steve's it apprears you believe children that come from a Christian household who trust the Lord for their salvation are the exception rather than the norm. Certainly many exceptions could be sighted but I wouldn't go to that extreme.

It wasn't my intention to imply that the Lord doesn't honor the efforts of godly parents in bringing their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are repeatedly taught that the Lord honors those who honor Him and I believe that there is a reasonable expectation the the Lord will honor the efforts of parents to raise godly children.

However, as my and Steve's and the scripture I cited point out, ULTIMATELY, salvation is of the Lord.

My concern is that we move, without our even seeing ourselves doing it, from relying on the electing grace of a Sovereign God to our own efforts to bring about salvation in our family. I beleive we must love a God who is sovereign in election and that includes His right to choose which of our parents, children, brothers and sisters, etc. believe and to love Him and trust Him in the matter no matter how much it hurts.

The same Christ that taught us to love one another also taught us, in no uncertain terms:

Quote
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

I believe we have to honestly come before Him and while pleading that it not be so, in our family, as it is described in this verse, yet saying, "Thy will be done", and love and respect His decision in the matter regardless of what it is.

That was my only point, Wes, not to negate the validity of the Lord's working in godly families, for I believe He does, but like Steve, my heritage is one of many ungodly, many Roman Catholic at the Great Grand parent level, my paternal Grandfather being converted in mid life after a great economic affliction. My grand parents on the other side were both unbelievers as far as I can tell.

Salvation is of the Lord, and is based on the "eternal covenant, ordered in all things and sure, in this is all my salvation and desire". Earthly covenants, and credo baptisms, are of respect and obedience but they are a second cause and an outward sign, in my view, and this is to always be kept in view, that He gets the glory.

I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that your family has been blessed to know "the light of His countenance" in succeeding generations. What a wonderful provision and blessing this must have been for you and your children and I praise Him that it is so.

In Him,

Gerry

Wes #13700 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:06 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Wes said:

Unfortunately you missed my point. What I wrote was, "Actually not all household baptisms recorded in the Bible tell us who were included nor whether faith was present in all the members of the household. If it were that cut and dried there would be no discussion.

Acts 16: 11:14,15 tells about a certain woman named Lydia who believed. We read that she and her household were baptised, but it doesn't tell us who her family members included nor if they had faith." My comments were in response to Prestor's suggestion that in each of these households all the members had faith. Unfortunately we can't substantiate that from the limited information we have. I tend to agree with Pilgrim's quote: "When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold)."


Wes

I agree Wes that not all household baptisms give us details regarding who believed or who didn't believe. However, my point was and still is that baptism came to those who heard the Word of God and believed in that household (I am specifically speaking about the adults). Again I must emphasize my belief that those adults who were baptized in the household weren't baptized because of the husband's belief but rather their own. Which I think is the crux of the matter. I can not reconcile these few bits of scripture with the idea that the belief of the head of the household resulted in the baptism of adults who didn't believe. Instead I see the Word of God preached and those in the household who believe being baptized. BUT I must insist that when I say this I am not saying that the children may or may not have been baptized. I will concede that possibility but I can not see that possibility with adults.

yours,

J_Edwards #13701 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:20 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
So Joe just for my own wondering those that signed the 1689 London Baptist Confession what would you call their system of theology CT or DT? And if DT why. Since DT hold to a (woodenly) literalist interpretation of scripture, a pre-mill rapture, and the view that Israel is still the covenant people of God. (Of course this is the short version) or are you defining DT in a totally different manner.

yours,

Pilgrim #13702 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:28 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Joe,

It has been my experience that many Credobaptists have grave concerns over the language used by many Paedobaptists, in that on the surface, it DOES appear that baptism and salvation are synonymous. Thus, to baptize an infant or an adult, in the case of Richard's view, connotes that salvation is infallibly promised and/or some salvific blessings are conferred. This concern is not confined to Credobaptists, as I too have found much to object to when I read such statements that have come from Paedobaptists. The problem I see here is that when we read, for example, "salvation has come to this house", one could wrongly assume that it means that each and every member of that household was saved. Or, that salvation would eventually come to each member of that household. I think this idea that "God generally saves entire families" only serves to exacerbate the chasm which separates Paedos and Credos. I personally find no biblical evidence that God saves "households". But contrariwise, when I read the O.T. record, it would seem that paradigmatically, the exact opposite is true. We read of this with the promise to Abraham, there was a bifurcation of that family (Isaac and Ismael). And again with Jacob and Esau. Actually, we see this even from the first with the children of Adam and Eve; i.e., Abel and Cain and again in the household of Noah.

What I believe is true is exemplified in the words of Peter:

<blockquote>Acts 2:37-39 (ASV) Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.</blockquote>

Salvation is promised to 1) those who repent and believe upon Christ, and 2) as many as the Lord our God shall call. These two elements determine salvation; one being God's sovereign and infallible call and man's responsibility to respond to that call, which is the fruit of regeneration. There is no universal, infallible promise of salvation to households. The promise of God extends to those who belong to those who fall within the two qualifications of, 1) efficacious calling and 2) repentance and faith.

Now, this "individualism" is no less biblical than is the practice of baptizing "groups" (households). And in my view, this would include ONLY believing adults and their children. Although they do go hand in hand, despite the objections of Credobaptists, they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the promise of salvation.

Granted, if both sides would acknowledge the verity of what I hold to be true, this would not remove all the differences that exist between the two camps. But I do believe it would remove some of the differences and thus bring about a more irenic relationship between them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That's my [Linked Image]

In His Grace,

And Pilgrim I wouldn't disagree with 99% of that at all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

yours,

Wes #13703 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:33 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Wes said:
Tom,

Acts 2:39 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." Peter proclaims that salvation through God's Messiah is promised to the Jews, to their children, and to all those who are far off (i.e., the Gentiles, Eph. 2:11-13). Here again is the message of Acts - the gospel is for Jews and Gentiles. Even though only those present may have received baptism that day the promise extended to their children and beyond.


Wes

Yes Wes it was extended to the children but again I'm sure you would agree that only those children who believed (even if they were baptized) received the promise. So while it may have been extended to the family it was the individuals of the family that received the blessing.

yours,

#13704 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:39 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
averagefellar said:
How would a first century A.D. Jew undersand the passage? I somehow don't see any clarification, anywhere, in scripture changing this understanding of how children are included. To a Jewish person, household meant something. Notice how Peter compares the old to the new, yet still doesn't mention this discontinuity? Interesting to me. I have read an argument from silence, but can't remember it exactly.


God bless,

william

Well William if you'd let me get a word in edgewise perhaps I would seeing as how I just returned to this discussion only to find that it has grown considerably and mutated from its original form which btw was household baptisms. But you seem to want to talk about baptist hermenuetics which I recall was another discussion entirely. So keep your pants on I'll get around to it.

You know I could have been a baker but no I had to start getting interested in theology. I could still be a baker. Might be easier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

J_Edwards #13705 Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:52 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Joe said:
Quote
When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold).
I agree.....and this is where I desired PJ to go with it. But, the NT is very strict here not JUST saying that salvation came to an individual, but that it came to his house. IMHO this is for a specific reason to reveal that the covenant came to the house, not just the individual. As you said, not that everyone in the house is saved--that would be utter nonsense, but that certain blessing do come upon the household. What blessings IMHO are clearly seen in the OT/NT.

Yeah, yeah, yeah my point way back when was towards Richards original statement (does anybody here remember that?) with regard to the head of the household baptism means that all the members of the household get baptized. Now I think we've all come to a point where we agree that individuals in the household were saved by God. And thus the statement of the household having come to salvation is true with respect to those individuals who came to salvation (and perhaps the children who were then baptized [maybe]but not necessarily saved or unsaved as they may or may not have been granted faith).

Baking bread is beginning to look awful appealing.

yours,

#13706 Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:19 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Well I was explaining DT in the short version as well. DT has so many versions that it is impossible to gather them and be explicit about each without a book....I actually had in mind Scofield...

Additionally, it is not the case of "either or", but "both and". IMHO the signers of the LBCF had both CT and DT in mind when they signed.........this is where the confusion comes in....


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13707 Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:40 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Joe, I agree that a proper hermeneutical principal is vital in discussing this matter. Where I think paedo-baptists err is in believing that the Covenants start with Abraham. They do not. They start with Christ. He is the 'Author and Finisher of our faith.'

WCF Larger Catechism, Q.31: 'With whom was the covenant of grace made?'
Ans: 'The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the Second Adam, and in Him with all the elect [including Abraham- Steve] as His seed.'

So when we read Gen 17:7, 'And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants for ever....', we must look to the NT for the correct interpretation. The Pharisees certainly held to a physical interpretation of the covenant. 'They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father.".....Jesus said to them, "....You are of your father, the devil!"' (John 8:39,42,44).

If the Jews, then, are not the descendants of Abraham, then who are? Why, you and me and all who have ever trusted in Christ for salvation! 'Therefore know that [only] those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'( Gal 3:7).
I had long debates with Matt McMahon on the Puritan Board on this subject. He boasts of having abandoned his 'Christ hemeneutic' for a 'Covenant' one. I say that if Christ is not the dead centre of all our theolgy, we are in error. We must look back from Him to see the working of the covenants in the OT, and forward from Him to see that working in the NT.

Luke 19:9. 'And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham"'. How was Zacchaeus a son of Abraham? Because he trusted in Christ. How would the rest of his house have become sons of Abraham? In exactly the same way.

Blessings to all,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13708 Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:43 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
yes, my substantiation is from Gen. 17:7, 10. Thank you for asking. And of course, the gospel is only in the last generation or two been in such places as Africa and central Asia. Whereas in Europe and the Americas there has been generation upon generation of Christian civilization. Are there exceptions? Yep. And that is why one must say "usually or normally" rather than "always."

Wes #13709 Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:50 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Wes said: I would certainly agree with that change. Of course there are many exceptions which could be sighted but all we need to do is follow the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 to see that the Lord does keep his promises working through the offspring of Abraham.

I'm not sure if "amen" posts are discouraged here or not. But I think that one thing people misunderstand (or at least in the southern USA this seems to be a problem) is that the "skipped" generation are not normative. They are designed to demonstrate God's continued sovereignty even in the midst of multi-generational covenants. Does God always save in the line of generations? Nope, then you know what we would do -- we would ignore the free grace or sovereignty of Grace that God bestows upon his people. This is what we see in great measure in the NT amongst the Pharisees and Scribes of that day. They would rather claim Abraham as their father than testify to their own faith.

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which even with the unfaithfulness of men, God's promise to be our God and the God of our seed continue true because of his faithfulness.

So....amen! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

#13710 Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:02 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Re: Gen 17:7,10.
Matt 3:9; Gal 3:7,9,29.

In haste,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#13711 Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:26 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
Richard laments:
They [the Pharisees] would rather claim Abraham as their father than testify to their own faith.
That's because they had no faith of their own they could testify to. Faith is not part and parcel of being a member of the external covenant. They were not the covenant children to whom the promise was made. They were not the children of Abraham but of the Devil. (cf. Jh 8:44; Rom 4:16; 9:7, 8, 29; Gal 3:29) They, like EVERYONE, were born spiritually dead. They inherited the corruption of nature which is infallibly passed down through families. And as such, they like our own children, were born under the wrath and just condemnation of God. They, like our own children, needed to be called to repentance and FAITH. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the Apostles ever presumed that there was faith in any of the covenant children they met. The gospel was given to ALL without discrimination because ALL needed to be saved; not presumed to be Christians.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
grace2U #13712 Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:29 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
grace2U said:
Re: Gen 17:7,10.
Matt 3:9; Gal 3:7,9,29.

Matthew 3:9,

Quote
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

This was spoken to "many" of the Pharisees and Saducees, right (v 7)? Why was it not spoken to "all" of the people, but only a "part" of those who were of the class that actively opposed the mission of Christ? This distinction is brought out quite forcefully in Mk 12:37-38, where the common people were hearing the words of Christ gladly even at the very time that Christ was warning them to beware of the zealots for self-righteousness. Does that mean that the Jews of that day were all converted? I would hardly say that -- but they were all circumcised and they all had the sign of regeneration in their flesh. Further, as Jesus himself pointed out to the woman at the well, "salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:24). But even at that it is important to view that "generation of vipers" in light of the Redemptive Historical scheme God decreed. It was this generation of which you speak that Isaiah the prophet spoke and the Psalmist spoke when referring to the hardness that would come upon Israel.

Of course Galatians 3 actually supports my position rather than yours, when we understand it in its context.

In Gal ch. 3, Paul was arguing against the self-righteousness of the Judaizers of that day. He was not contrasting those who had faith with Pagans, but rather he was contrasting those who depended entirely upon the righteousness of Christ with those who had some measure of trust in self-righteousness. Thus those who depend upon their own works cannot be the children of Abraham; only those who place their faith in Christ's doing and dying are the true children of Abraham. But Paul did not go on to say "and of course your children are trusting their own righteousness." In fact, it was a child's humble reliance upon others that Christ so clearly commended in Matt. 19:14 and parallel passages.

So, once again, I would simply point out that you may be confusing the terms "usually" and "normally" for "always." There is not a paedobaptist of whom I am aware -- and certainly no reformed paedobaptist -- who maintains that all the children of believers are elect head-for-head. It may be easier to argue against that position; but it is not the position I have espoused.

Now I have a question for you or any other antipaedobaptist who wishes to undertake it. Is there an example anywhere in the NT of a family coming to Christ and one or more members of that family being refused baptism for any reason, including personal unbelief? Or alternatively, is there an example in Scripture anywhere of a child who grew up in a home where papa and mama were baptized, but the child was overlooked only to be baptized later? This does not mean that the child grew up in a Jewish home and was or was not circumcised earlier. The example must be of one who grew up in a self-consciously Christian home and the child only later "came to faith in Christ" and was then subsequently to his coming to faith baptized. I am not aware of any such example, and yet in our American culture that is accepted as the norm among many evangelicals.

grace2U #13713 Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:00 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Joe, I agree that a proper hermeneutical principal is vital in discussing this matter. Where I think paedo-baptists err is in believing that the Covenants start with Abraham. They do not. They start with Christ. He is the 'Author and Finisher of our faith.'
And where did Christ desire for our understanding of the covenant (one) to begin? Did God first say here is Christ? No, Christ the author, began with Adam, Noah, and then Abraham, didn’t He? God does everything for a reason! God chose to relate to us in one covenant dispersed in stages for our clarity. God is not a haphazard God. God desired for our understanding of the covenants to be in the order He has revealed them to us in His Word. Look at the hermeneutic Paul uses in Galatians: he argued from Abraham to Christ…..The Scripture demands proper interpretation not inflipatation to suit our theological luggage. God gave us His hermeneutic in Gen 1:1 In the beginning.....to lead us to the One of the beginning (Jn 1:1, 14).

Quote
So when we read Gen 17:7, 'And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants for ever....', we must look to the NT for the correct interpretation. The Pharisees certainly held to a physical interpretation of the covenant. 'They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father.".....Jesus said to them, "....You are of your father, the devil!"' (John 8:39,42,44).
Of course, Jesus and Paul speak about the "real" members of the covenant that are apart of the invisble Church (Rom 2:28-29). But, did you notice that your quote included the members of the visible church, that of course where lost? They were circumcised also!!! The covenant of the OT included both circumcised visible and invisible church members. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, but it is not a totally new covenant. It is a better covenant, for it has its completion in Christ, et. al., but it still bares the marks of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, all of whom are mentioned to one degree or another in the New Testament…. The covenant is like a scroll that continues to be rolled out—and when our glorification appears it will be finished rolling….

Quote
'Therefore know that [only] those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'( Gal 3:7). I had long debates with Matt McMahon on the Puritan Board on this subject. He boasts of having abandoned his 'Christ hemeneutic' for a 'Covenant' one. I say that if Christ is not the dead centre of all our theolgy, we are in error. We must look back from Him to see the working of the covenants in the OT, and forward from Him to see that working in the NT.
Well, I am not sure you (1) are quoting MM in context (while MM and I have had or differences on Baptism, I know he was not taught that, nor held to it before) (2) or if is your lack of understanding Covenant theology.

In brief, Covenants were established by kings to others in the ANE (Ancient Near East). Kings of one kingdom established covenants with kings or vassals of other kingdoms. There were basically two types of covenants in the ANE: (1) Parity, where both sides speak about the conditions—bilateral (2) Suzeran-Vassal, where the relationship is between the Greater and the lesser. Covenants were carried out for the eternity of the king’s kingdom, unless otherwise stipulated. God chose to basically relate to man in the later form of covenant. God took an oath to honor this covenant with Abraham and others. (please read: Covenants, Christ of the Covenants by Robertson and He Gave Us Stories by Pratt, as I do not have the time or space here to write a fuller explanation).

Christ has a Kingdom. He is the King of that Kingdom. Christ the eternal King relates to His Kingdom in eternal covenants. Thus, a proper Covenant hermeneutic has Christ as its King. Consequentially, we do not abandon Christ, but we rather embrace Him with the fuller understanding of (1) who He is, and (2) how He relates to us as the King of His Kingdom. In the New Testament, we see that God merely rolled out the scroll of the covenant a little further for our understanding now in Christ …

You do realize, using Gal 3:7 as your proof text for whom to baptize mounts to very huge problems for you. It entails you knowing for sure who is and who is not a son of Abraham. Since, there is NO WAY you could ever fully know then you would never be able to baptize a single soul. So, if you baptize you do so against your own hermeneutic!

Its been real nice visiting again, but now the grind returns. See you in a few weeks…


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Pilgrim #13714 Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:33 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said: That's because they had no faith of their own they could testify to. Faith is not part and parcel of being a member of the external covenant. They were not the covenant children to whom the promise was made. They were not the children of Abraham but of the Devil. (cf. Jh 8:44; Rom 4:16; 9:7, 8, 29; Gal 3:29) They, like EVERYONE, were born spiritually dead. They inherited the corruption of nature which is infallibly passed down through families. And as such, they like our own children, were born under the wrath and just condemnation of God. They, like our own children, needed to be called to repentance and FAITH. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the Apostles ever presumed that there was faith in any of the covenant children they met. The gospel was given to ALL without discrimination because ALL needed to be saved; not presumed to be Christians.

Pilgrim, I agree with your "two seed" theology. There is a seed of Christ and a seed of the devil. I would also say that it sometimes the case that one finds tares even amongst the wheat and that a dragnet pulls in fish both good and bad. Having said that, I disagree with your characterization of my position as "presumptive." Jesus had some very important things to say about the children who were coming to him in Matth. 19:14. He did not say that they were head-for-head elect, nor do I believe that they were. I'm not sure if this is simply such a drastic difference from modern American Calvinism that it is difficult for a North American audience to distinguish, or if I am simply a very poor spokesman.

What I have been presenting is the position of the Westminster Assembly -- esp. its Directory for the Publick Worship of God -- and the Church Order of Dordt. Thus, too, the Heidelberg Catechism at Q74, "Are infants also to be baptized? Yes: for since they as well as the adult are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must, therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of infidels, as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.

Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism, explained in part,

Quote
Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore they ought to be baptized.

Article 34 of the Netherlands [Belgic] Confession states, "And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for the adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them."

So, the reformed creeds, confessions, and directories were not at all hesitant to make such statements. Can one disagree with them and still be a Calvinist? Of course. The 1689 London Confession is an essentially baptistic document that is quite Calvinistic. Further, I agree (one has to close the pages of the Bible not to agree) that the line of election and reprobation cuts through the visible manifestation of the covenant and makes a distinction between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the promise.

I am familiar with Dr. Nicole's famous dictum "grace, not race." But IMO that sets up a false dichotomy. God is not realizing his covenant in history apart from the organic unity of the covenant. There is an outworking of the covenant in history (always has been; always will be) that contains an organic element. Denial of that organic element is fundamental to the antipaedobaptistic position.

These two positions (doctrines) must be held together. One cannot choose election over the covenant and neither may one rightly choose the covenant over election. But that is the dichotomy that Nicole expresses -- and I think most antipaedobaptists do as well, though not so eloquently as he. Samuel Rutherford, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, referred to the covenant as "God's workship." It is primarily, though not exclusively, within the context of the visible covenant that God calls out his elect.

The reformed creeds and confessions can certainly "sound" like they teach presumptive regeneration -- what they actually teach is that we should expect our children to be Christian children. That expectation may be realized sooner or later; but it is a real expectation. We raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; we train them in the ways of God; we watch them grow in grace and in knowledge of Jesus Christ; we see that they speak and behave as those who assent to God's own truth. If an adult were trained in the ways of God, well grown in grace and knowledge, spoke and behaved as one who assents to God's own truth, what would we say about him? We would not "presume" he is a Christian. We would say that his profession of faith is a credible one. That is exactly what the reformed creeds spoke of with respect to children as well.

Quote
So, the WCF at 28:1, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:...." Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, pp. 661-2.

It is important to note that the reformed creeds do not say that regeneration is tied to baptism such that it takes place at the same time or prior to baptism. In fact, the WCF goes so far as to deny that idea. But, like Matthew 28:19-20, the reformed creeds join baptism and discipleship in a covenantal way. Who is saved? Those who believe and are baptized. How do we make disciples? By baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things that Christ has commanded (which commands include the command to repent and believe the gospel). So, does this sometimes sound like presumptive regeneration? It can to some -- and apparently did to Kuyper. But that is not what the creeds teach. And on a slightly less important note -- that is why we call creeds and confessions secondary or derivative standards, and do not make the same claim for individual theologians.

I have written this post, Pilgrim, in order to point out first of all that the language I use is simply and only the language of the reformed creeds and confessions. It was not incorrect or unbiblical of them to use the language, nor is it incorrect for us to use that language today. Second, I want to point out that we do not have to accept the dichotomy that is often times presented to us by such phrases as "grace, not race." Such a phrase siezes the ground away from biblical theology by setting at odds two things that God has not set at odds. Finally, I want to assure those who have read these posts (and unquestionably in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin - Prov 10:19) that I do not believe nor do the reformed creeds teach that baptism is a substitute for faith. The two have been joined together by God. We separate them at great peril.

#13715 Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:51 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
First of all, read Luke 3:7-9. JTB's words were spoken to the Pharisees and also to the 'multitudes'.

Secondly, what are you saying about Paul's words in Gal 3:7 etc? Are they only true in a certain context? Under what circumstances might Paul in error? Only those who believe are sons of Abraham, which is why our Lord commends to us the simple, trusting faith of a child, which comes so hard to those who are older and (in their own eyes) wiser (Matt 19:14).

I am not, as you suggest, an 'antipaedobaptist'. I have much respect for the views outlined on this forum by Pilgrim and others, even where I do not agree with them. Nor do I confuse 'always' with 'usually' or 'normally'. What I oppose is the Doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration which says that because a child is born to Christian parents, he may be presumed to be regenerate. All that one can say of a child is that he is born in sin and shapen in iniquity and unless he is born again, of water and the Spirit, he will never so much as see, let alone enter, the Kingdom of God (Psalm 51:5; John 3:3,5).

If you can find me an example in the Bible of anyone of any age being baptized without professing faith, or if you can quote me that passage in 3Timothy about the procedure for baptizing infants, then I will find you the passage you request.

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
J_Edwards #13716 Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:32 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Well since you're disappearing, there doesn't seem to be much point in replying in depth.
Two quick points. Firstly, Christ is everywhere in the OT. 'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39). Christ's covenantal role is seen as early as Gen 3:15.

Secondly, Baptists are not by any means required to judge infallibly on anyone's salvation. We baptize as the Apostles did, on a person's profession of faith. Water baptism is not the seal of the New Covenant, Spirit baptism is (Eph 1:13-14). Water baptism brings no one into any covenant. Simon Magus was baptized in water, but his heart was unchanged. Therefore Peter told him, "You have neither part nor portion of this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 9:21).

Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47). If nothing has happened inwardly then baptism is irrelevant.

Have a nice break!
Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
J_Edwards #13717 Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding something. But from my studies, DT didn't come along until 1833, the LBCF was written in 1689.

Tom

#13718 Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Richard,

I realize that to even "think" that the framers of the Westminster Confession went too far, had a wrong emphasis, or God forbid were actually in error on what they wrote is construed as next to blaspheme to some; especially if one is referring to the Scottish Covenanters! rolleyes2 However, it just may be true on this matter.

As to Ursinus' comments on his Catechism:

Quote
Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore they ought to be baptized.
IF by this he means in a general way, i.e., that salvation is not to be excluded from a child simply because they are children, then I can fully agree. IF, however, as Kuyper understood Ursinus, that the benefits of salvation are actually and infallibly promised to infants of believers, then he is in error. This is because the promise of God is infallible in the matter of salvation. And this promise includes both the benefits of Christ's atonement and the means by which those benefits are apprehended. Therefore, the promise of God unto salvation extends to ALL who are called efficaciously, repent and believe upon Christ; yes, even to children.

I obviously oppose ANY and ALL forms of salvific presumption, whether it be in regard to election, regeneration, faith, etc. Children of believers are surely blessed in that they are given the outward means of grace whereby God calls His elect to Christ. (cf. Rom 3:2; 9:4, 5). What I warranted to presume is that ALL children are born into this world guilty before God and possess a corrupt nature; being under the wrath and just condemnation of God and in dire need of regeneration and conversion.

Quote
I'm not sure if this is simply such a drastic difference from modern American Calvinism that it is difficult for a North American audience to distinguish . . .
You have made such statements several times in various places. It seems to me that to you think that the Calvinists of Scotland, during a limited time period in history are to be the standard by which biblical truth is to be measured? Is this true? It surely seems this way. So that any Calvinist born in America or who disagrees with any of the Scottish Covenanters is suspect? [Linked Image]

In another reply you quoted from the The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, which I would also like to quote from the section, "Of the Administration of the Sacraments: and first, of baptism", wherein it is written of the children of believers who are to be baptized:

That children, by baptism, are solumnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and all who are baptized in the name of Christ . . .; That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:


Granted, that as the form continues, in the prayer to be offered, it is said that there is hope that God would graciously "join the inward baptism of his Spirit with the outward baptism of water; etc." Yet, the language used in this quote, specifically, saying infants/children are "united to believers" and calling them "Christian" is specious at best. We have had the same disagreement, along with myriad other issues concerning children in the covenant, with Drs. McMahon when he was here in this regard, i.e. the definition of biblical terms. And this term "Christian", I contend is to be restricted to only those who have repented of their sins and profess faith in Christ. One has no biblical warrant to consider (presume) an infant of a believer to be a Christian without outward evidences observed. To be "united to believers" is to be one with them in that the one united is indwelt by the Spirit and first united with Christ. There are only two groups recognized in Scripture; those who are enemies of God and those who are adopted sons of God. Children may have an "interest" in the Church in an outward way but until they are united to Christ, that interest and relationship is strictly external in nature and this relationship should not be blurred by the misuse of terms, IMHO.

On this matter, I do not foresee us coming to any agreement. smile

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Tom #13719 Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Tom,

Perhaps I can give some light to this confusion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe is NOT speaking of "Dispensationalism" in regards to Eschatology. Rather he is using the term in regards to a Hermeneutical method, i.e., one that uses, to one degree or another, a "psycho-statistical-mean", aka: Plain reading of the text, literalism as a basis for understanding the Scriptures. Darby and Scofield used that same method and from it produced eschatological "Dispensationalism". So, all Joe is referring to is THAT method alone and not the eschatology that is derived from it. I hope this helps you to understand this better now.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #13720 Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Thanks Pilgrim

Boy does this topic ever stretch a person. It takes all of my will power not to take the easy way out and say to myself; "what is the use, you might as well drop it, you will never completely understand the matter anyway."

Tom

grace2U #13721 Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47). If nothing has happened inwardly then baptism is irrelevant.
Then why DID they baptize Simon Magus as he does not meet your definition above for baptism?

You can't PROVE anything has happened! Profession does not mean possession. Thus, baptism is against your hermeneutic!

PS: I thought today was Tuesday, my bad. The grind begins tomorrow.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Pilgrim #13722 Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:42 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said:I realize that to even "think" that the framers of the Westminster Confession went too far, had a wrong emphasis, or God forbid were actually in error on what they wrote is construed as next to blaspheme to some; especially if one is referring to the Scottish Covenanters! However, it just may be true on this matter.

It may be. Nor would I say that the framers of the Westminster Confession are the last word. But what I would say is that the reformed creeds and confessions teach the same precise doctrine that I do. No more and no less. It is therefore the historic and credal view of paedobaptism that I am setting forth. You may not like it and that is certainly your privilege as a student of the word of God. I would not deny that to you. But what I would point out is that my view is not some aberration from the historic credal paedobaptist view of the reformers -- it is, in fact, precisely their view, be it right or wrong. I do not quote the fathers to demonstrate something is biblical. I quote the fathers to demonstrate that it is not I who has departed from the historic reformed understanding.

Quote
IF by this he means in a general way, i.e., that salvation is not to be excluded from a child simply because they are children, then I can fully agree.

That is not the question at hand, though. The question at hand is whether they are to be regarded as belonging to the world or the church. This is not speaking of children qua children, but baptized children qua baptized. And again, you are free to agree or disagree with Ursinus. I merely quoted him as an authority on the HC because he was its primary author -- not because he is himself infallible.

Quote
What I warranted to presume is that ALL children are born into this world guilty before God and possess a corrupt nature; being under the wrath and just condemnation of God and in dire need of regeneration and conversion.

The very creeds that I quoted maintain the same thing. There is not a reformed creed that avers that children of believers are born sinless or without a corrupt nature. Whether they are "in need" of regeneration depends upon whether they have already been regenerated. But the WCF again clearly states at 28.6 that regeneration is not so tied to the time of baptism that it may not occur before or after such baptism takes place.

Quote
You have made such statements several times in various places. It seems to me that to you think that the Calvinists of Scotland, during a limited time period in history are to be the standard by which biblical truth is to be measured? Is this true?

Look, the fact is that the reformation doctrine of infant baptism was precisely the same as mine in every regard. I have demonstrated that by numerous proofs from not only Scottish documents, but from the reformed continental creeds as well. You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is not the opinion of the Westminster divines or the Belgic divines or the churches that have adopted the Heidelberg Catechism. That is fine. You are not held to that as your ultimate standard. We believe sola Scriptura. But you cannot escape the fact that it is you who differs from the reformed standards on this subject and not I. Bringing up this old bugaboo about confessions not being infallible is simply beside the point of the discussion.

Quote
It surely seems this way. So that any Calvinist born in America or who disagrees with any of the Scottish Covenanters is suspect?

Let's put it in more precise terms. Anyone who has departed from the reformed creeds has ipso facto departed from them. One cannot rightly and fairly depart from those standards and then accuse one who continues to maintain them of some aberration from the reformed faith.

Quote
Yet, the language used in this quote, specifically, saying infants/children are "united to believers" and calling them "Christian" is specious at best.

Fine, you disagree with the Westminster Directory. You are not the first and I doubt you will be the last. But it is not correct for you then to imply that those of us who continue to believe the very things that the reformers of both the first and second reformation maintained are somehow the ones who have departed from the reformed understanding of paedobaptism.

Quote
Children may have an "interest" in the Church in an outward way but until they are united to Christ, that interest and relationship is strictly external in nature and this relationship should not be blurred by the misuse of terms, IMHO.

And I have repeatedly stated that you have every right to that opinion. But the language of the Westminster standards and of the continental reformed confessions do not teach what you are objecting against. You are importing ideas onto the language that are simply not there. Alternatively, you may simply disagree with the [historic] reformed view of paedobaptism. I cannot say with certainty that you are doing one or the other. But the language I use is not different from the language of the historic creeds, be it right or wrong.

God bless

#13723 Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:11 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Richard,

My standard of authority is first and foremost, as I will assume it is yours also, the infallible Word of God. Thus, my objections to the language used by the Westminster Standards, and the Dutch "Form for Infant Baptism", which to many teach presumptive regeneration. I also object to the view which believes that non-professing adults are to be baptized when the head of that household comes to faith. You have maintained that this has been the standard practice of the Reformers and Puritans, if I have understood you correctly. To my knowledge, which I admit is not infinite, i.e., I have not read EVERY single work written by every author during the period ranging between 1500-1800, yet I have not found any that have taught this. Again, this doesn't mean that NONE have held to this view, but rather of the MANY authors I have read, none of those have. So, that causes me to ask, how is it that you say this is the STANDARD view which was practiced, yet not one author I have read held to it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

However, IF what you claim is true, then there are myriad men of God, some notable, e.g., Owen, Edwards, etc., who would fall under the odious charge of having "departed from the historic reformed understanding". Personally, I don't equate that as something negative. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> I simply don't follow the teachings of men when those teachings cannot stand up to the understanding of God's infallible Word which I believe the Spirit has given me.

Quoting from various historic documents is all well and good, and something which I do also. But my arguments are first and foremost based upon the biblical text. And should any of these historic documents affirm the same, then I find great value in them.

So again, I say, that I seriously doubt we shall ever agree upon this subject as I find no biblical basis for the view you are espousing here. My specific disagreements would be: 1) In a household where the "head" (man) is a believer, all non-professing adults should be baptized, and 2) Children of believers are to be considered "Christian" and are "united to believers (and/or Christ)" before they make a profession of faith.

Thanks for the exchange. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
J_Edwards #13724 Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:17 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
It's exactly as I stated. Simon Magus was baptized on his profession of faith (Acts 8:13). However, this faith was not saving faith, being unaccompanied by repentance (v19). Therefore his baptism was an irrelevance and he was subject to the ban of the church (v21) until such time (if at all) as he should signs of repentance (v22).

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It would be nice if no one ever made a false profession of faith, but life's not like that.

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13725 Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
It's exactly as I stated. Simon Magus was baptized on his profession of faith (Acts 8:13). However, this faith was not saving faith, being unaccompanied by repentance (v19). Therefore his baptism was an irrelevance and he was subject to the ban of the church (v21) until such time (if at all) as he should signs of repentance (v22).
I know WHY, but that was not the point....In your hermeneutic you claim you MUST know someone is saved prior to baptism (You said: Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47).). But as I already stated you can't prove this--Magus himself disproves your asserted hermeneutic.

Since baptism according to you is irrelevant let me ask you if the circumcision of the lost in the OT was irrelevant ? Let me make it clearer, are the commands of God irrelevant ? The answer is NO they are not. There was a purpose then and there is a purpose now. It is called obeying the covenant as laid down by its King....


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13726 Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:12 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe,
OK Joe, no need to get so emotional! We are not "the enemy" because we are Baptists! Lets get back to the original subject of this thread. Baptists and paedos have agreed on the subject of adult believers' baptisms, that they should be done only after a believable profession of faith. You, as a paedo must also make some sort of judgement regarding a person's salvation to baptize an adult or else to admit someone to the table as a communicant member. I am sure that you and Steve would use the same standards to determine, as much as possible, if this person has saving faith. But back to the question, would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is a believer? Would you find this objectionable?

#13727 Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:37 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Richard,
Since the term paedobaptist refers to a person who baptizes infants, don't you think it would be more fitting to refer to yourself as an oikosbaptist?

#13728 Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Susan said:
Joe,
OK Joe, no need to get so emotional! We are not "the enemy" because we are Baptists! Lets get back to the original subject of this thread. Baptists and paedos have agreed on the subject of adult believers' baptisms, that they should be done only after a believable profession of faith. You, as a paedo must also make some sort of judgement regarding a person's salvation to baptize an adult or else to admit someone to the table as a communicant member. I am sure that you and Steve would use the same standards to determine as much as possible if this person has saving faith. But back to the question, would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is believer? Would you find this objectionable?
Yes, Susan I agree for ADULTS that is correct, but that was NOT the original reason for this "part" of the thread which is Tom's post on baptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> This is what my remarks are being addressed toward "infants"--we baptize in obedience to the covenant....

But, if anyone baptizes an adult because of, "Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47)," his hermeneutic is faulty--as there is NO WAY the baptizer can confirm that something has happened inwardly to another...This common hermeneutic of baptism will never stand the test of Scripture.

As far as this question (though not the subject matter in this part of the thread) "Would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is a believer? NO, I would not (that is not even an issue for me...)!


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Tom #13729 Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Tom,

Don't give up. None of us will never get it all. The switching of terms is very confusing. Wait till you begin studying Historical Criticism--then it really gets fun....


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13730 Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:00 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Joe said:
Well I was explaining DT in the short version as well. DT has so many versions that it is impossible to gather them and be explicit about each without a book....I actually had in mind Scofield...

Additionally, it is not the case of "either or", but "both and". IMHO the signers of the LBCF had both CT and DT in mind when they signed.........this is where the confusion comes in....

See now this is where you lose me when you say things such as that. Dispensational Theology earliest history is in 1827 from formation of the Plymouth Brethren until now. How can the creators of the London Baptist Confession be dispensationalists when the system of theology didn't exist until 127 years later?

Every covenant theologian agrees that during the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace there was continuity and discontinuity between the administrations. So from Adam to Abraham the administration was different than from Abraham to Moses, or Moses to Christ. What I see and I think others who follow baptist covenant theology is that the administration during the New Covenant has a different discontinuity then what paedobaptist covenant theologians perceive. I don't think this is dispensationalism I believe this is covenant theology from a baptist perspective. And yes it is a different hermeneutic but its hermeneutic has nothing to do with dispensationalism. If anything I would say that dispensationalism took from us (and other covenant theologians) not the other way around.

#13731 Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
I am speaking of a dispensational hermeneutic ....which has been around a long time..... You may enjoy A Brief History of Covenant Theology.

Yes there is continuity and discontinuity. And yes I agree that is what Baptists see it differently then CT. In general we see greater discontinuity is in the Mosaic covenant and greater continuity in the Abrahamic. A dispensational hermeneutic sees the opposite as explained already in the other posts...


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13732 Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:11 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Well Joe,
That's your opininion, but it certainly isn't mine <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' [whether he's baptized or not] Seems simple enough to me.

You are equating circumcision with water baptism, something which neither I nor the Scriptures ever do. In doing so you are putting the new wine into old bottles. However, it is worth noticing that the apostate Israelites are called uncircumcised of heart (eg. Jer 9:26; Acts 7:51). Something had happened externally to these Jews which was not reflected internally, and it made their circumcision of none effect in the eyes of God.

Have a nice holiday (or whatever it is),
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13733 Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:19 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
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:
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.


God bless,

william

#13734 Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:36 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi William:

You quoted the following, I presume to support the postion taken in your other posts:

Quote
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:
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.

But to me the text is clear that:

1. It is a circumcision "made without hands", thus, not one of mans' doing, it is "the circumcision of Christ", thus, it is not water baptism, by either mode.

2. This "circumcision without hands" seems to be equated in the text with "buried with Him in Baptism", an "operation of God", thus, it seems to me what is in view is the baptism of the Spirit, which is the sign and seal of the true and everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, made in eternity past, between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and from which all subservient covenants proceed.

In Him,

Gerry

#13735 Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Thanks Gerry, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />
Absolutely right! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
J_Edwards #13736 Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

I have been doing a little research on this subject and what I have found leads me to believe that you are misunderstanding Reformed Baptist CT. To be sure what you said is correct about Dispensationalism. But it is not true of Baptist CT, in Baptist Covenant Theology Abraham’s promise that the Messiah would come from his blood line is perfectly continuous with the arrival of the Messiah and the fulfillment of the New Covenant.
John Owen speaks of the point that the Abrahamic =Promise of the New Covenant. So says John Owen commenting on Hebrews 8.6,
See the following link under John Owen on the Covenants.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/reformedbaptist/homepage.htm
John Owen of course is a paedobaptist, but he appears to agree with Baptist CT.

Tom

Tom #13737 Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Tom,

You fail to understand my argument in full. I am not saying Baptists do not have idea ofCT w/Abraham or anyone else (I apologize for not making this clearer), but that when it comes to certain doctrines they drift the way of a dispensational hermeneutic. As I said in another post it is not an either or situation, but a both and.

As far as the aging of a dispensational hermeneutic I know it is as old as MARCION (85 CE, yes the heretic), et. al.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13738 Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:36 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

I guess I fail to see how Baptist CT drifts over to Dispensationalism when it comes to baptism and eschatology.
The only real big difference I see, is the conclusions i.e. credo & paedo, that Baptist and non-Baptists CT come to.

You said: "As far as the aging of a dispensational hermeneutic I know it is as old as MARCION (85 CE, yes the heretic), et. al"

That is interesting, because every commentary and theologian that I have read against Dispensationalism, reads between 1827-1833.
I suppose it could be that Dispensationalists reject Marcion, because of his heretical views.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:46 PM.
Tom #13739 Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:51 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
Tom remarks:
That is interesting, because every commentary and theologian that I have read against Dispensationalism, reads between 1827-1833.
Tom, my boy... AGAIN, this statement has to do with ESCHATOLOGY and not with a "dispensational" hermeneutic, i.e., a more rigid bifurcation of the covenantal structure, a more literalist-type of reading of the biblical language, which results in more DIScontinuity than CT. You gotta keep this stuff separated. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Tom #13740 Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:46 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Hi Tom,
This slur of dispensationalism against Reformed Baptists is just a cheap shot and has no basis in reality.

If anyone calls you a dispensationalist, do one of two things:-
1. Forgive him <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> He doesn't know any better.
2. Call him a hyper-covenantalist and see how he likes it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#13741 Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Brian had sent me a very kind e-mail and I hope the answer to this will assist in resolving some issues.

Brian's Question:

Quote
I have been following the posts on the Household Baptism thread, but have become very confused at one point, and thought you might be able to guide me. The problem is that, as children were circumcised as the sign of inclusion in the covenant, so this is given as the reason for their baptism, as signifying inclusion in the covenant. Richard makes the point that as spouses, servants etc. were included in circumcision, so, likewise they should receive baptism. This I find difficult, and note from your reply to Susan that you do not accept it. My problem is, how does one refute this idea, from scripture, without also destroying the very argument used for the inclusion of children? Any guidance you can eventually give me would be much appreciated.

Yours in Him,
Brian
The covenant is to Abraham and his seed, as you know from the OT (Gen 17:7, etc.) as it is traced to the NT (Gal 3:16, etc.). Thus, the covenant is to TWO groups and in TWO different administrations:

TWO kinds of people:

  • 1. Abraham (an Adult)
  • 2. His Seed (Children)
TWO kinds of administration:
  • 1. In the covenant that God prescribed, Abraham had to believe and it was accounted to him for righteousness. This has not changed in the NT, except it has been made clearer...in Christ.
  • 2. In the covenant that God prescribed, Abraham was to be faithful and to circumcise his children dependent on loyalty to the covenant that God had established and not dependent on his children's present or future loyalty to the eternal covenant with God (remember Moses' case when he failed to obey this...).
In addition, we ought to be careful about reading too much into the text of 1 Cor 7:14. IMHO, Richard has failed to see the TWO fold administration above and thus he is forced now to apply the hermeneutic of the children to an adult (Richard I mean nothing personally against you here--only the consistency of your argument). This of course is in error as so many NT passages reveal that an adult must (1) profess Christ (2) repent, etc to be baptized....This was also true in Abraham's case!

It is evident that the Gospel penetrates the world so that in a given family one spouse becomes a Christian but not the other. Then the believing spouse by conduct, word, and prayer may win his or her partner for Christ. Because of Christ’s power, the influence of a believer is often stronger than the influence of an unbeliever. Calvin states, “For the godliness of the one does more to ‘sanctify’ the marriage than the ungodliness of the other to make it unclean.” Paul is not saying that an unbelieving husband or wife has been made morally holy through his or her Christian spouse. No, man is unable to sanctify or to save a fellow human being. What the apostle is saying is that an unbelieving spouse who lives intimately with a Christian marriage partner experiences the influence of holiness.

To be sanctified means that a person is influenced by the claims/power of Christ. The converse is equally true: anyone who is not sanctified is influenced by the claims of a world that is opposed to Christ. A study of the Scriptures reveals that the Greek word to sanctify has at least four different meanings. In general it signifies,

  • 1. to set things aside for sacred functions (e.g., items relating to worship at the tabernacle [Exod. 29:37, 44]).
  • 2. to consecrate people by either baptism (I Cor. 6:11), a Christian marriage (I Cor. 7:14), or atonement for sin (Heb. 9:13).
  • 3. third, to reverence people, names, or things (I Peter 3:15).
  • 4. last, to purity someone from evil.
The second meaning of the verb to sanctify applies to the verse at hand. The believing husband or wife sanctified the unbelieving spouse much as the temple sanctified the gold connected with it, or the altar the gift laid upon it (Matt. 23:17-19). The object was not holy in itself but was holy by association.

Paul is not saying that the Gentile spouse has a personal relationship with Christ, for then he or she would no longer be called an unbeliever. Nonetheless, this person’s conduct is affected by that of the Christian partner. He or she agrees to live with a Christian in whom God’s Spirit resides, fulfills the obligations that stem from the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24), and keeps the marriage intact in obedience to Jesus’ command (Matt. 19:6). Both spouses live in a sanctified environment, for the home is consecrated by the reading and application of God’s Word and by prayer.

Please read S. Kistemaker's commentary on 1 Cor for more. Lord willing I'll be back in a few weeks....Back to work...


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13742 Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Well stated Joe! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
grace2U #13743 Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:17 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
grace2U said:
Hi Tom,
This slur of dispensationalism against Reformed Baptists is just a cheap shot and has no basis in reality.

If anyone calls you a dispensationalist, do one of two things:-
1. Forgive him <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> He doesn't know any better.
2. Call him a hyper-covenantalist and see how he likes it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Every blessing,
Steve

Hey Steve as the guy who started this little discussion I must tell you I don't care for that particular response to Joe's statement. Joe is freely expressing his views with regard to a particular hermeneutic that he refers to as "dispensational". Whether that is correct term or not has yet to be determined. But slurs toward this fine Christian Gentleman is not called for at anytime. As a person who has sat under this man in this forum and learned much, I would rather have this man teach me than most others that I have had the misfortune to waste an hour or two on a Sunday.

#13744 Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:20 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
averagefellar said:
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:
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.


God bless,

william

C'mon William your better than this lets not proof text any of us here.

grace2U #13745 Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Grace2U

I do not consider what Joe said to be a slur at all. Nor do I believe it is a cheap shot.
I don't agree with him, but if he didn't believe it he wouldn't have said it.
Now I have seen slams before, but I didn't see one in Joe's post.

I ask you, if you were coming from Joe’s position and you believed Baptist CT’s became dispensational when it came to baptism and eschatology, how would you say it?
Just remember, it was me that asked him, not the other way around.

Tom

Pilgrim #13746 Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:33 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Thanks Pilgrim


As you can plainly see, my knowledge of these matters is limited and I come from the perspective of a student of the Word, more than someone who is just defending Baptist CT.
Of course that doesn't mean I don't have a position that I lean towards.

Tom

#13747 Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:08 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Yes, let's move to a whole Bible hermeneutic.......you ready?


God bless,

william

#13748 Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Looks like I overstepped the bounds here.
My apologies to all <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
grace2U #13749 Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:25 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Steve,

I apologize if you took my comments on a dispensational hermeneutic wrongly. This is not meant as a derogatory term, but merely descriptive of one's interpretation method....This is just a short cut way of saying someone carries over less of the original covenant, which as you know is similar to dispensational methodology. But this does not make one a dispensationalist! It simply means he is mixing hermeneutic methods. If I add 1 part water (DT) to 99 parts Pepsi (CT) I no longer have a complete pure Pepsi, but it definitely is not a glass of water.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
grace2U #13750 Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:34 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I apologize for any wrongs as well. however, I wouldn't expect anything less than a zealous defense from a zealous Christian.....of which I have no doubt you are.


God bless,

william

#13751 Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:43 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Yes, let's move to a whole Bible hermeneutic.......you ready?
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a whole Bible hermeneutic. There is no such thing as a clean slate (TABULA RASA) in a human being. We can be as objective as we may, but we always bring something to the text. We bring with our interpretation(s) a knowledge/impression of theology, history, and literary styles/hermeneutics. Additionally, we do not even have the original manuscripts or "complete knowledge" and thus though we can be as precise as we may, it will never be "complete" in this life. While you probably meant that we should merely get back to discussing the Scripture (with which I agree) me thinks a new post on hermeneutics is fitting...

PS: I have left some open ended comments above on purpose for discussion.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13752 Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:33 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
You know I could have been a baker but no I had to start getting interested in theology. I could still be a baker. Might be easier
Leavened or unleavened bread? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13753 Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:06 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Well, I suppose our hermeneutic comes into play once again. This was discussed here as well

Covenant Symbology


God bless,

william

#13754 Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:04 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
averagefellar said:
Well, I suppose our hermeneutic comes into play once again. This was discussed here as well

Covenant Symbology


God bless,

william

William the Parthians were quite famous for riding their horses away from the enemy turning around in the saddle and shooting at their adversaries. This tactic came to be known as the Parthian Shot. Which finally degenerated into "parting shot".

Since I believe that everything that can be said has been said about this I'm just going to agree. Yes it is your hermeneutic that promotes this. I see the New Covenant administration as being different. It doesn't include the children as recipients of the sign until their confession.

Your arrow sir.

#13755 Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:19 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Well, I am not 'riding away'. I have been here for months, maybe longer, and am not departing. In fact, today I make a monetary donation, with the intent of staying longer. Departing? Not me. You are still free to overcome your dilemmas, I'll be waiting.

But I understand horses that rode away, the parting shots they made.......but rode away from what? Departed from what?

Departing Shots

Nobody dealt with the post in that thread, and you didn't offer anything here either, well, except that parting shot. Yes, we see this differently. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me any teaching that changes the administration; how the church missed it for 1600 years; and why the NT never clarified such a drastic change in administration.

Now, let's stop the cheap shots and actually start overcoming your dilemmas.


God bless,

william

Last edited by averagefellar; Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:26 AM.
#13756 Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:01 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Here I believe we're dealing with continuity and oikos too

Although there is one link that doesn't work there so I've corrected that here:

A critical evaluation of paedobaptism by Greg welty

And just for the record I've been here for years and I'm glad to hear that your thinking of donating to Pilgrim. Its a worthy cause. I know I've learned much from the various articles and interaction with the worthies of this board.

#13757 Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:37 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
To me, it is easily worth as much as a good book. Ummm........a great book. I hope to donate regularly.

While I think we'll disagree, agreeably, I still consider baptists as christians. I can think of several I could recommend reading......White, Paisley, Spurgeon, and actually own books by some of these great scholars. Please don't let my fervent discussion make it seem otherwise. The baptists that are on this board are a fine lot of people, and I appreciate their input.


God bless,

william

J_Edwards #13758 Mon May 17, 2004 3:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Hi Joe

Sorry I am rehashing an old thread, but unfortunately it took me quite a while to research some of your points and even now I feel like I am only scratching the surface.

You said: “Well Fred would be right except for one very serious error. Paul used the O.C. to explain the new! Even Hebrews shows the fulfilling of the O.C. in the New. Look at Hebrews 11, where does the author begin on the issue of "faith?" Thus, the proper hermeneutic is to use the Old to explain the New—a principle taught in every seminary I know of (most of them Baptist), except when it comes to baptism & eschatology—interesting!”

So far in my research of the issue, what I have found tells me that the common Reformed understanding is that the OT is the background and foundation of the NT, but also that the NT is the final interpreter of the meaning of the OT.

To quote Augustine (from Fred Malone): “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”
Also from reading Fred Malone on the issue, he didn’t learn this from a Baptist Seminary; he learned it from Presbyterians at Reformed Theological Seminary.

I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes.
Let me explain this by quoting O. Palmer Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson -- from "The Current Justification Controversy"---

"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."

Please understand I am not saying you agree with Shepherd and Auburn Avenue theology, I am just saying that they come by their theology through the same hermeneutical principle you are espousing.
I hope I am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
Please forgive me if this post sounds disrespectful, believe me it is not meant to be.

Tom

Tom #13759 Mon May 17, 2004 10:19 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Tom,
You make some excellent points. My OPC pastor says that the New Testament is the commentary of the Old Testament. The OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ.

Tom #13760 Mon May 17, 2004 10:36 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
First, if hermeneutics was as easy as a little phrase we would not need the volumes that appear in the libraries of seminaries throughout the world.

Second, read He Gave Us Stories by R. Pratt (he teaches hermeneutics at RTS) and you will find the hermeneutic similar to that Malone “originally” learned (depending of course on which campus and professor he studied under. If I am not mistaken Malone studied at Jackson where Pratt use to teach.). RTS, nor “true” Presbyterians teach a dispensational hermeneutic!!! And if you would have read the whole post, instead of just your cut and pasted portion, you would have more fully understood the discussion being--dispensational vs. Covenant hermeneutics. Here is a list of books you can purchase for yourself.

Quote
Tom’s "Respectable" Heresy Charge <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes.

"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."
Me thinks you have not understood. First,where did I say that, "the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT?" Where is the "quote." I said in essence that the O.T. is the foundation for understanding the N.T.!!! (Example formally alluded to: interpret Heb 11 without the O.T.). Second, look who you are making the quote from, O. Palmer Robertson (WTS), who uses the same hermeneutic as I do <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Third, the quote is not about baptism, and, finally it speaks of there being too much control BUT, not "no control" at all. Tom if you remove ALL the O.T. references from the N.T. how much do you have left? The O.T. clearly pervades the N.T. Additionally, I am sure you are well aware of my other posts concerning O.T./N.T. continuity and discontinuity. Tom, you need the O.T. to more fully understand the N.T. and if you will look at my whole post, and not just the partial cut/paste that you did, that is what I originally stated. Pure and simple Tom a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation! The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#13761 Mon May 17, 2004 10:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Susan said:
Tom,
You make some excellent points. My OPC pastor says that the New Testament is the commentary of the Old Testament. The OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ.
IMHO, while I would agree that the "OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ," the N.T. is much more than a mere commentary of the O.T.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Tom #13762 Mon May 17, 2004 10:48 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
Tom asks:
I hope I am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
Joe is certainly capable of speaking for himself and answering your question. But being one who knows Joe better than most here, I can assure you that Joe is NOT saying that the Old Testament is the final authority in interpreting the New Testament. He would hold just as clearly to the Augustinian ditty as most others. BTW.. the way I learned it was, "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in the New explained."

I think that Joe is saying that the foundation for understanding the New Testament is found in the Old Testament. In short, you simply cannot come to a right and/or full understanding of the N.T. without first understanding of the O.T. In fact the N.T. consists of over 80% quotes or allusions to the O.T. This truth is, of course, totally ignored or rejected by most modern "Christians" for either theological or other reasons. This is why you see so many people handing out little "N.T. Bibles" rather than the whole inspired Book.

Anyway..... for example, a right understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is rooted in the writings of the O.T. upon which Paul builds and explains it in the New. And that is what the New Testament does in the main; explain the truth found in the Old, not necessarily introduce everything as "new" in total contradistinction to the Old, as if the O.T. can be dispensed with now that the N.T. has come. This, I believe, is what Joe was expressing, albeit not in language you were able to discern. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> What he is saying is that our understanding of "Covenant" is found in the O.T. not in the N.T. What we read of "Covenant" in the N.T. is founded upon the teaching and examples of which are found only in and throughout the O.T. writings. So, if you want to rightly understand what a "covenant" is according to the Scriptures, you don't look to the New Testament but to the Old Testament. Is this so hard to comprehend or perhaps accept? It's nothing new, Tom (and all who are wrestling with this hermeneutical issue). Our understanding of God is mainly found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The doctrine of the atonement is mainly found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The Bible's eschatology is mainly found in the Old Testament, not as most assume, in the New Testament. (e.g., you simply cannot understand "Revelation" aright until you have grasped the teachings of the Old Testament) . . . etc.

I hope this sets the record straight as far as what Joe holds true hermeneutically..... admittedly an assumption on my part, but one which I believe is an accurate one and which I am very sure Joe will correct if I have misrepresented him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #13763 Mon May 17, 2004 11:39 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
In short, you simply cannot come to a right and/or full understanding of the N.T. without first understanding of the O.T. In fact the N.T. consists of over 80% quotes or allusions to the O.T. This truth is, of course, totally ignored or rejected by most modern "Christians" for either theological or other reasons. This is why you see so many people handing out little "N.T. Bibles" rather than the whole inspired Book.

You know.......it took me several years of wandering to understand this. Once I came to this understanding of hermeneutics, the entirety of the Bible seemed 'easier' to comprehend.

I have noticed this as well. Several times I have heard young christians ask what to read I almost always hear a response of , "the NT first", or,"at least the entire NT". It occured to me, about three months after becoming reformed, that christians are suppose to be people of the book...the entire book.


God bless,

william

J_Edwards #13764 Mon May 17, 2004 2:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Joe

Just a quick reply.

First of all, I am glad that I misunderstood you.
However, I will say that I am not the only one who understood your meaning to be "the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT".
That of course wasn't a dirrect quote from you, it was just my understanding in a nut shell of what you were saying.

My understanding was not just based on the quote I mentioned in my post, but your entire post.
I only quoted that part because I thought it went right to the nitty gritty.

You said: "RTS, nor “true” Presbyterians teach a dispensational hermeneutic!!!"

I agree whole heartedly, but what puzzles me is why you believe people like Fred Malone teach a dispensational hermeneutic. Like I said he learned this hermeneutic principle at RTS.
I also know that the phrase by Augustine is quoted in that manner by many other people.
I would also agree with you that hermeneutics is not easy. In fact I doubt that Augustine used that phrase in that manner, he probably just used it as a principle in which to study hermeneutics.

I better stop for now.

Tom

Pilgrim #13765 Mon May 17, 2004 2:55 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Pilgrim

Just to make myself clear, I am in no way advocating that we shouldn't use a whole Bible hermeneutic. For indeed the OT is the background and foundation for the NT. But I also believe that the NT is the final interpreter of the meaning of the OT.

Tom

Tom #13766 Mon May 17, 2004 3:19 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
I agree whole heartedly, but what puzzles me is why you believe people like Fred Malone teach a dispensational hermeneutic. Like I said he learned this hermeneutic principle at RTS.
Tom, Malone is teaching that there is less continuity in the Covenants which is IMHO a dispensational hermeneutic (this is the terminology we use. Again, as previously explained this is not meant as derogatory, but only descriptive). Now he DID NOT learn a discontinuity of the covenants in relationship to baptism either (1) at his Presbytery exam (for he would not have passed, etc.), or (2) at RTS in hermeneutics class(es). The only way he may have picked this up at RTS is in a separate session (luncheons, et. al.) as I, and others (some Baptists), occasionally have with Dr. Nicole (a Reformed Baptist) and/or others. But, this is not considered a "normal class."


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13767 Mon May 17, 2004 4:51 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
IMHO, while I would agree that the "OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ," the N.T. is much more than a mere commentary of the O.T.

Joe,
You are the one who chose the word mere. I can assure you my pastor would never speak of inspired Scripture in any way but with the greatest respect.

#13768 Mon May 17, 2004 5:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Susan,

IMHO the N.T. is more than just "the commentary of the O.T." I am not doubting the sincerity of your pastor's heart here Susan, but the N.T. is a testament in its own right (with which I am sure your pastor would agree, but his statement appears to speak otherwise). The N.T. is also a testament that is grounded and has a foundation in the O.T., since most of its content come from the O.T. There is a continuity between them that is rich and as we discover and apply this continuity of truth it enriches us a well.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #13769 Mon May 17, 2004 6:12 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
You don't really want to quarrel with me do you, Joe? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />

I wasn't intending to explain everything my pastor believes about the Old and New Testaments, only one point that was germane to the topic Tom brought up.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 263 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
July
S M T W T F S
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 31
Today's Birthdays
Readin, sojourner
Popular Topics(Views)
1,526,888 Gospel truth