I would rather not get into the baptism issue, mainly because it has been discussed at length many times. But also, I don't know of a way to get into a discussion like that without it taking quite a bit of my time. By the way, have you read 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' by Fred Malone? It will give you a better idea than I could why I am a credo-Baptist.
Have you read The Purpose Driven Church? Fred Malone's book is full of errors, some pointed out on this very board. I know you don't want to discus anything of depth. You would rather remain "non-dogmatic" than scriptural. Why don't you post the most convincing argument Fred lays out and allow some orthodox Christians to show it's error?
I notice how you like to make judgements of people you don't even know. Where did you ever get the idea that I want to remain undogmatic about anything? I am dogmatic about credo-Baptism, until I see biblical arguements that prove otherwise. I mentioned Malone's book not because I want to discuss the matter, but because I thought it might help you know where I am coming from better.
If you want to discuss Malone's book, perhaps you can start a new thread mentioning certain things in the book. There are Baptists on this forum that I am sure may oblige you. But unless I feel compelled to (which I have been known to do), I probably will not be participating.
I notice how you like to make judgements of people you don't even know. Where did you ever get the idea that I want to remain undogmatic about anything?
Tom, your own words and actions here are how I know you. I've moderated here for some time now and been around longer. Aren't your words representative of your true character? I think in this time I could say I understand your beliefs and posts fairly well.
You prefer to remain non-dogmatic about several issues. Isn't that what you claimed you were concerning an age of accountability? What about that conversation about the gifts? Still non-dogmatic about tongues?
I am dogmatic about baptism as well. I don't need to read Malone's book. I've read scripture and the credo position holds no merit. What I want to discuss is why an age of accountability is very much in line with baptist theology......care to actually interact with my question?
Quote
I mentioned Malone's book not because I want to discuss the matter, but because I thought it might help you know where I am coming from better.
What better way to know you better than to discuss the issue? Fred's not infallible. I used to be a baptist. I attended the religious studies program at an arminian-credo school for two years. I understand the position. I was just attempting to bring you back to orthodoxy instead of being dogmatic about the one issue that makes you part of a schism.
If any baptists here wish to put up some of Malone's errors, I'm sure myself or others would address these issues.
All good and well, Tom, but wherever in Scripture does it say that we are not held accountable for doing wrong because of our age? Saying that someone didn't know the difference between right and wrong is not the same as saying that they were not responsible for anything.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
In my initial post, I mentioned Isaiah 7:15-16 “He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”
I am not completely sure what this is saying, could you please exegete it for me, thanks.
I know that it is a prophecy about our Lord, but the words “at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good,…” have been used by some to try to prove that there is an age of accountability. I think they are stretching the passages meaning to prove their point, but need more input to know for sure.
Well, first of all this section of the book of Isaiah is directing our attention to the coming hope of Israel. Isaiah 7:1 - 9:7 predicts the ill success of the Syro-Israelitish invasion of Judah--Ahaz's alliance with Assyria, and its fatal results to Judea--yet with certainty of final preservation and the coming of the Messiah.
In chapter 7 verse 14 we have the wonderful prophecy regarding the birth of Jesus. [/i]"...Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."[/i] We know from the New Testament that Isaiah is refering to the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23, Luke 1:27). Although some, especially the Jews of the second century A.D., understood the prophecy to mean Ahaz's wife and her child Hezekiah (ref. 2 Kings 18:2). But as Jerome (c. 400 A.D.) pointed out, Hezekiah was already born. Others identify the woman as Isaiah's wife or a woman betrothed to him (8:3). The child would then be Isaiah's son in the immediate context.
The question raised here is whether we have a detailed and emphatic reference to the coming of the Messiah and to the manner of His birth or do we have a strickly limited reference to the fact of the presence in power of the almighty Jehovah. In considering the matter, we must remember that so very often Old Testament prophecy has a double reference, and immediate and an ultimate fulfilment. In verses 15-16 there is quite obviously an early deliverance in view. The birth of the child with the sacred name Immanuel "God with us" is token of the fact that deliverance is sure. But beyond that there is the certain and ultimate promise of the salvation of Jehovah on the behalf of His people Israel. Only through the coming of the Son of God and the reality of the incarnation did the way open for the fulfilment of this latter and more absolute deliverance.
In verse 15 it says the child's diet will be of "curds and honey" which suggests the He would grow up after Judah's destruction. This is not a typical food for infants, but points to a time when people will not have milk and honey but rather have to live off unworked fields (v.22). The Child is identified with the remnant. In verse 15 we also read "that He may know to refuse the evil." Self indulgence made the failed leadership of Israel insensitive to social and spiritual values (5:11-23), but this diet will sensitize Christ to the work of the Lord (42:1-4).
Then in verse 16 we read "For before". Before this child grows to the age of moral comprehension the land you dread will be forsaked by both her kings. Pekah and Remaliah will both be defeated. What he's saying is this is going to happen very soon. In this understanding, "child" points primarily to Isaiah's son, and secondarily to Christ.
Quote
Matthey Henry writes:
Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isaiah.7:16. "Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms’’ (he means not Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, v. 3), "before this child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good’’ (and those who saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), "before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin," who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Ki. 15:30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2 Ki. 16:9. No, there was a present event, which happened immediately, and when this child carried the prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin had carried away, who were brought back, not by might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. Read the story, 2 Chr. 28:8–15. The prophetical naming of this child having thus had its accomplishment, no doubt this, which was further added concerning him, should have its accomplishment likewise, that Syria and Israel should be deprived of both their kings. One mercy from God encourages us to hope for another, if it engages us to prepare for another.
So in my opinion the focus on the phrase of the child coming to an age of understanding or "that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good" refers to a relatively short period of time. We shouldn't try to impose some doctrine of accountability into this verse which was never intended to be there. It simply points the reader to the fact that the time is short that it takes for any child to come to the years of discretion, and in that short time the kings of Samaria and Syria will be destroyed.
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
Alrighty Tom, two new threads for you to share why you are dogmatic about being schismatic. Care to share why Fred Malones errors are actually the theology the Church missed for 1600 years?
I've made several posts recently. I realise you probably will not engage the issue, but maybe you'll read, anyways. SO here is a bit on this topic.......
Quote
In terms of having his children less privileged than the Paedo-Baptists Malone says, “I think not.” He is wrong. God was angry with Moses for not applying the covenant sign. Abraham was told to be sure to apply the sign of the covenant or else he would “break” the covenant. Why does Malone think the New Testament sign is any less significant when it is Christ that is being ignored in the fullness of the New Covenant refreshed? He even goes so far to assume that a non-covenanted child can partake of the “possible” blessing seen in 2 Samuel 12:23 that David said when “he would go to him.” Why would Malone tread back into the Old Testament to retrieve comfort from a Covenant Theological Scripture? He has already rejected this. This comes down to Malone’s own ideas here – if he needs a New Testament “clear instituted prescribed” practice for his children to be blessed, then he should look to the New Testament and try to dig up a non-covenantal argument from weary Dispensational theology. There are none. The children of believers are blessed based on the promises of the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ, and are special to Christ when they are inducted into the covenant by reception of the sign. By his own admission, I am curious as to why Malone is even bothering with “rescuing” his children from the Paedo-Baptists admission of their non-covenantal status. Why does he feel the need to do this? Can’t he just say they are wicked little brats, and that God cares nothing for them since they are not regenerate (he hates them) and leave it at that? Why does he make a fuss? And it is not harsh to say these things since his own theology teaches it. It is what he is trying to prove! The Baptism of disciples ALONE. God cares nothing for His children. What reason does He have to care for them? On the other hand, the faithfulness of God for the promises made to believers and their seed give them every hope that God will be faithful to all those promises. What promises do Malone’s children have as children?
Accordingly, in an individualistiv soteriology as taught by most baptists, children must come to their own knowledge prior to baptism. Certainly we cannot expect this to happen at age two. In fact, I know some college students whom I believe could not do so, either. So where is this treaching in scripture? Where is that passage that tells us this age? Where can we read about it happening this way? Without a direct command (isn't that what Fred said?) and without any type of inference for this belief, I toss it aside as yet another fabricated myth.
