The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt. 2

My summary of Paul Manata's Intro to the debate.

Premise 1. Baptism is for those who enter the Church

Premise 2. Infants of one or more Christian parents are Church members.

Paul discusses the grammitical historical hermeneutic. We both agree on that. Then he makes the point that family plays a BIG role in discovering the truth of what we are looking at.

Then Paul starts to discuss the ramifications of being covenantally cursed and how that relates to children by quoting Jeremiah 44:7 and Michael Horton. To be covenantally cursed in the Old Covenant is something we are just going to have problems with because we see the natures of the Covenants differently. Besides this covenantal cursing is based upon the Old Covenant of Moses and not the New Covenant. The New Covenant can not be broken according to Jeremiah 31. It is not a covenant like the one made with the fathers which they broke. Grant it Paul is making a point about a Covenant Family and the basis of the Church is the Covenant Family in his understanding. Again I think we need to make a distinction between the natures of the Covenants and Covenant families here based upon the different natures of the Covenants. We are going to differ here.


Paul makes mention under his second premise that no Jewish apologist has made a mention of Christians being cursed for removing their Children from the Covenant. I find this rather odd. I am not a historian but if my mind understands the days of the early church Christians were considered outside and apostate from the Jewish covenant anyways. So I am not sure that that would have been an argument. Albeit it is still an argument made from silence. Which may be a good argument or not. Paul's point in mentioning this is that the early Christians must not have excluded their children from covenant inclusion or being members of the New Covenant because the apologist don't say they are cursed for covenant exclusion of the children. But I find this a rather moot argument because the Jews considered Christians cursed anyways because of covenant unfaithfulness. Therefore the Christian's children were cursed according them and they wouldn't have written about this anyways.


After this Paul goes into describe the immutablity of the Covenants. I agree with him concerning this for the most part. Covenants are immutable but their natures are different. I know we are going to disagree on the nature of the covenants. And possibly even whether or not the Covenant of Grace had a sign before Abraham. And then we will disagree on the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision probably.

Then Paul discusses the Church and when it starts. Gene and I are definitely going to agree with him for the most part here. But whether or not we are going to agree on whether or not the ecclesia is fully matured or how the ecclesia is related to a specific covenant or not is another matter. Paul also shows that the children were included with this ecclesia in the Old Covenant and the whole assembly stood before the LORD. Again we are left without defining our distinctions and and consideration of the natures of the Covenants. I believe he is blurring the lines because he does not see the difference between the natures of the Covenants. Every man can stand before the face of the LORD. Even Balaam the Seer stood before the LORD and communicated with Him. Paul Manata is speaking of the Old Covenant Congregation and he is not making a distinction between natural Isreal and spiritual Isreal. Even St. Paul said not all of Isreal was Isreal. Paul is not even considering the Nature of the Covenants he is mentioning. As I mentioned before in the first Critique, Rich Leino and I had a discussion on the Abrahmic Covenant and the distinctions that are discovered in it even. There are differences to who is considered in covenant with God's everlasting Covenant and who is not but is included in the Covenant of circumcision. I don't think Paul is considering these distinctions either. A link to this discussion is in my first critique of Gene's intro.

Paul then goes into a lot of Scripture quotes that emphatically say "the Children." And as a highlight verse he turns to Malachi's prophesy of John the Baptist. The turning of the Fathers hearts to their Children and the Children's hearts to the father. He is emphasizing the Covenant Family restoration as opposed to the curses found under the old covenant.

After that Paul brings to the attention the passage of Jeremiah 31 and the Law on the heart. He makes mention that the law was not upon old Covenant hearts. And they were cursed for it. At this point I am scratching my head because he is implying it seems to me that because a child is born to someone who has the law written on his heart that the child automatically should be assumed to have the same law written on the childs heart.

I am probably butchering Paul's points but we just are going to have a major disagreement on the nature of the New Covenant vs. the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant.

One of my disagreements with Paul is that our Children are not cast off because we have not baptized them or consider them to be in covenant with God. I consider children to be born under the Covenant of Works, not the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision nor the mosaic. I am commanded to raise my children in the admonition of the LORD. I am also commanded to admonish others to be reconciled to God which would bring them into a New Covenant Relationship but all children are born outside of the Covenant until God brings them into the New Covenant. My children attend Church with me and I admonish them to call upon the Lord but they are not New Covenant Members whose sins are forgiven without Christ effectually calling them.

Just my 2 cents at this point.

BTW... Paul is a much better debator than Gene on this issue so far. And he is a much better writer than I am so he will probably rip me apart. And that is ok. He did not ask me to critique him either.

Next...

Paul makes a point to say he believes all the texts he quoted on children , and that I have not mentioned because of time, are verses that include children in the New Covenant. Well, Ok but I have many questions as to their generalities and specific points. We could almost make a case for all children of believers are going to be in heaven by the passages Paul quotes and I am not sure he wants to do that either.

He later discusses the training of Children up in the admonition of the Lord. And seems to imply that this is only done in a covenantal inclusion that looks like the Old Covenant inclusion. But I totally disagree with this. He then makes mention of the 5th commandment and raising children. But I think the promise of the fifth commandment would be applicable even to someone who is not covenantally included with Abraham and after. For any child who honoured there parents biblically, God would bless. BTW there were families who were in the Covenant of Grace around the time of Abraham who were not of his family and who didn't receive the Covenant of Circumcision. They had no sign but they were in the Covenant of Grace. Nehemiah Coxe mentions this in his book Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.

Then Paul asserts the same argument that we have all heard before that the sign of baptism was placed upon all the family members and there must have been children there. Therefore the Covenant sign is placed upon children.

Again we are just going to disagree about the Natures of the Covenants. Whether there is a cursing or non cursing in the New Covenant is a big point of contention that I believe is being missed so far. His understanding must be if one was cursed for not circumcising in the old then there is a curse for those not given baptism at birth by believing parents. His argument is that there is no removal of children from Covenantal inclusion of God's visible people. But I don't think Paul M. understands the Nature of the New Covenant clearly. The children in the New Covenant are those of faith. They are the spiritual children of Abraham who are justified by faith alone and their sins are forgiven.

Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

Just from listening to his first part Paul has not proven his conclusion to me as you can see.

Now I did this off the cuff and Paul may have something to say as to how I heard him and that is fine. I am not the infallible Pope. LOL

That finished the first introduction section. I did this in a rather tired state so if you don't understand what I have written, your not crazy.

I will continue on to the next section later.