Presby Replies Only Please!

Joshua · #1 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:22 PM

Ok. Every time I've wanted some information from common folk for a common fool as myself on the Puritan Board, it's turned into argumentation.

I really don't want this thread to be that, rather, I'd like for it to be explicatory. This is concerning Infant Baptism as practiced by Presbyterians.

I've tried to read about it in places, but I end up being overwhelmed because of my Baptistic presuppositions; however, today I was browsing http://pcpc.org and I clicked on "sermon series". In it, was a breif explanation of Infant Baptism from the Paedo perspective. It's actually the simplest that I've read on the subject and I feel that I've come to the clearest understanding of it thus far.

My intention is to post several different questions concerning a few of this gentleman's statements (Dr. Joseph Ryan). Firstly, I ask that if you're Baptist, please do not reply. If there's something you wish to contest please do so in another thread. Secondly, if you're Paedo and wish to discuss with someone else's statement that may be a reply to me, please start a different thread on such. If I'm asking too much, then please ignore me and forgive my naive insolence. Thanks.

Joshua · #2 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:42 PM

Dr. Ryan cites Genesis 17:7-13
[quote:55ae2484d2]
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant
[/quote:55ae2484d2]

And Matthew 3:13-17
[quote:55ae2484d2]
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, [1] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, [2] with whom I am well pleased."
[/quote:55ae2484d2]

And Matthew 28:18-20
[quote:55ae2484d2]
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
[/quote:55ae2484d2]

Joshua · #3 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:42 PM

[quote:a56aaa8468][i:a56aaa8468]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:a56aaa8468]
This sounds fine, though I think the moderators will move it to the CT page. [/quote:a56aaa8468]

Oops. Doh! (like Homer)

Joshua · #4 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:46 PM

Firstly, in Genesis 3, I understand that Baptists and Dispensationalists would say that "[i:b9d6b4f136]everlasting covenant[/i:b9d6b4f136]" would be true in the context of the physical nation of Israel only. Dispensationalists would go so far as to say the Church is not Israel but the people of God until the pre-trib rapture, and then Israel's "[i:b9d6b4f136]everlasting covenant[/i:b9d6b4f136]' picks up where it was left off.

Obviously, that's much inferrence and assumption, right?

Joshua · #5 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:48 PM

Secondly, in Genesis 3, where it says, "whether born in your house, or brought with your money from any foreigner"...this is an inclusion into the covenant even for those who are not of the flesh Israel, simply for being under the headship of one who IS in the covenant, right?

Joshua · #6 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:54 PM

Dr. Ryan said:
[quote:a96a15785e]
Did circumcision indicate that when Abraham obeyed God and had his son Isaac circumcised, that Isaac believed in God? No...So circumcision does not indicate the faith Isaac has. Rather, it inidcates that by virtue of who his daddy is, he is included in the covenant family.
[/quote:a96a15785e]

Though I'm sure it's been passed around many times here on the board, I've been sunken into the polemics of it all and maybe didn't notice.

His statement drove home a point to me that I'd never thought of before. And later he says:
[quote:a96a15785e]
Circumcision, and baptism after it, are signs of entrance.[/quote:a96a15785e]
Finally, I've been able to make sense of my faulty presuppositions, by reading his simple explanation of such.

Joshua · #7 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 05:56 PM

Another thing I'd never thought of:
[quote:db16fe6013]
...since Christ is the final and complete Sacrifice, it does not seem appropriate that after the shedding of blood on the cross there would be a sign that would further shed blood.
[/quote:db16fe6013]

This was a helpful statement.

Joshua · #8 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 06:07 PM

Ok, this question I'm sure Matt (webmaster) will be happy to answer for me.

Dr. Ryan said this:
[quote:f5e298925d]
It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course
[/quote:f5e298925d]
Is this presumptive generation? If so, what of those who are godly parents, baptize their infants, and yet, their kids never bear fruit of saving faith?

Scott Bushey · #9 (**permalink**) 12-28-2003, 07:18 PM

Josh,
First off let me clear the air in regards to the term "PR". The term itself is a misnomer of sorts. It in and of itself is not a biblical term. It seems to me that it is a term to describe the faith of the covenanters as seen through the eyes of those whom do not understand the covenant and Gods promise. Simply put, God promises something for us and our children. We, as Abraham did, believe God, prayerfully acknowledging that the same faith was accounted to Abraham as righteous.

In regards to the quote of Dr. Ryan:
"It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course".

The above is not PR...........The issue I have problem with is the "in due course" reference.

Covenant children who show later in life that they have no fruit are considered apostate.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by Scott Bushey]

bigheavyq · #10 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 04:50 AM

Some things that weren't mentioned in the article that need to be mentioned.

while I don't disagree with the application to the verses on Jesus baptism, I feel that a better application would be that christ was fulfilling the law that a priest before he enters the ministry was baptized with sprinkling.

when cornelius and the phillipian jailer were baptized, it was their entire household. Now, either this was a big revival so that even all the servants were saved and there were no small children present or because of the faith of one, the whole house was blessed and therefore even adults who may not have believed at that moment were baptized.

I believe in household baptisms and I believe this is a key in arab/muslim cultures. They are a patriarchal culture if one could lead the head of a house to Christ and then baptize the rest. The entire house would be seperate and may bring more peace to the entire house.

I hope this is helpfull

Joshua · #11 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 07:03 AM

[quote:fdfef5e702][i:fdfef5e702]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:fdfef5e702]
Josh,
First off let me clear the air in regards to the term "PR". The term itself is a misnomer of sorts. It in and of itself is not a biblical term. It seems to me that it is a term to describe the faith of the covenanters as seen through the eyes of those whom do not understand the covenant and Gods promise. Simply put, God promises something for us and our children. We, as Abraham did, believe God, prayerfully acknowledging that the same faith was accounted to Abraham as righteous.

In regards to the quote of Dr. Ryan:
"It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course".

The above is not PR...........The issue I have problem with is the "in due course" reference.

Covenant children who show later in life that they have no fruit are considered apostate.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:fdfef5e702]

And that's the line of thought coming from my mind. His statement seems to go against God's elective purpose being purely sovereign and unconditional...unless of course His elective purposes are familial and not individual. I think Kevin would comment on this. I appreciate everyone's help. This is something I'm struggling with and trying to read the divines on such a subject "blows my mind".

Joshua · #12 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 07:10 AM

[quote:707ab73422][i:707ab73422]Originally posted by joshua[/i:707ab73422]
Secondly, in Genesis 3, where it says, "whether born in your house, or brought with your money from any foreigner"...this is an inclusion into the covenant even for those who are not of the flesh Israel, simply for being under the headship of one who IS in the covenant, right? [/quote:707ab73422]

I wanted to rehash this question in case it was missed the first time through.

kceaster · #13 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 01:22 PM

[quote:db92261989]Firstly, in Genesis 3, I understand that Baptists and Dispensationalists would say that "[i:db92261989]everlasting covenant[/i:db92261989]" would be true in the context of the physical nation of Israel only. Dispensationalists would go so far as to say the Church is not Israel but the people of God until the pre-trib rapture, and then Israel's "[i:db92261989]everlasting covenant[/i:db92261989]' picks up where it was left off.

Obviously, that's much inferrence and assumption, right? [/quote:db92261989]

Any time the lines are drawn between God's people as being an earthly or spiritual entity, I think Paul's speech is being ignored. The dividing wall of separation is broken down. There is absolutely no way, given the context of Eph 2, that we can ignore the fact that the everlasting covenant that began with the Jews and is continued in us to this day is one and the same.

Thus, the only way that persons can look at the Jews as earthly and national over against the NT saints being heavenly and spiritual is because of their bias and presupposition.

Salvation is conjoined in Christ for both.

The main contention after this is that in the OT there was but a remnant of believers and in the NT, all in the assembly are believers. This is an argument from silence of sorts and it is a false dichotomy. There have always been both believers and unbelievers in the assembly. And, I will venture that there always will be, else where are the goats to come from?

So, yes, you do see that it is "dispensational" to believe that an everlasting covenant was made to Abraham, though it is displaced to a certain degree because of the NT and given to the Gentiles. I see this as dispensational although I do believe that some have held to this earlier than dispensationalists. Scofield and Chafer made it their own to be sure.

[quote:db92261989]Secondly, in Genesis 3, where it says, "whether born in your house, or brought with your money from any foreigner"...this is an inclusion into the covenant even for those who are not of the flesh Israel, simply for being under the headship of one who IS in the covenant, right?[/quote:db92261989]

Right. This also flies in the face of it being a completely Jewish nation in which everyone descended from Abraham. It is interesting that when a foreigner would seek membership in the covenant community, they would have to meet the stipulations (circumcision) and that the laws would all apply to them. Further, Lev 19:34 says, "'The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." After a few generations, the lines were blurred and disappeared. They would become children of Abraham and have a full share in the commonwealth. The tribal lines would then consist in not only all those who were naturally born, but also include those who were "adopted" by the tribes.

The Ninevite converts and those spoken of in Esther would all be considered Israelites.

By virtue of the outward sign and their good standing in the covenant community (when righteous judgment was present) would make these slaves and servants and children of such, all members (externally) to the covenant of Abraham.

I do not think we can grasp what it meant to be a servant or slave of that day. We don't fully understand all the implications of what that meant. If we did, perhaps we would not have such a problem seeing why this was commanded and prescribed.

[quote:db92261989]Ok, this question I'm sure Matt (webmaster) will be happy to answer for me.

Dr. Ryan said this:

[quote:db92261989]
It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course[/quote:db92261989]

Is this presumptive generation? If so, what of those who are godly parents, baptize their infants, and yet, their kids never bear fruit of saving faith?[/quote:db92261989]

We must always bear in mind that the water and the ceremony is not what makes a baptism effectual. The Spirit, and Him alone, makes a baptism effectual.

Now, for those who are effectually called, these also have been worked by the Holy Spirit in faith. Faith is the operative. This faith does not come from us, but from God.

If we are effectually called, the faith which is produced in us, also produces our justification, which in turn leads to our adoption and then to our sanctification. This faith relies upon the promises of God because none of the work we do has ever made it possible for us to merit the favor of God. None of the work our fathers have done has made it possible for our salvation. Only what the Spirit has done, is our hope.

The Spirit causes us, by faith, to look forward to the same work being done in our children. He has also given us means to appropriately train our children so that they grow up in the fear of the Lord. In faith, we apply the sign and hope for the effectual operation of the Spirit in their lives. Our hope does not make it happen, our obedience in and of ourselves does not make it happen. The Spirit can and does work through our obedience to His own ends. He uses our obedience, which is wrought by Him, as a means to aid Him in our child's salvation.

The sign is applied to welcome the child into the covenant community. It also welcomes the child to an "in Christ" relationship. They will be raised as if they were in Christ, realizing that they are truly in Christ only if the Spirit has effectually called and regenerated them to it. In this process, because the outward sign is applied, the Spirit, then, at whatever time He sees fit, makes the inward baptism (circumcision of the heart) operative. Without regeneration, no one could be justified, adopted, or (progressively) sanctified. When this happens, sacramental union takes place between the physical sign and the spiritual thing signified. Their physical water baptism and their baptism by the Holy Spirit are one.

However, sometimes, for what reason God has decreed, the children of believers, even though the sign is physically applied and they are brought up as they should be, the Spirit does not effectually call them. This underscores God's sovereignty and man's responsibility and does not take away from the promise of God. For even if one's own children may be apostate, there are children that come from that union and subsequent unions that will be effectually called by the Spirit. We not only trust God for our children, but their children and their children after them.

In this way, Abraham could circumcise Ishmael, because he knew God's promise was true no matter what. God did not promise each son or daughter. He promised godly seed which means that it is not only the first generation, but generations upon generations after them.

As a side, I cannot look at God's covenant as one made with me alone. For one, it was not made directly to me. Although I am included and am in covenant with God through my federal head, Christ, it is not my individual covenant. Because the covenant is not to me, per se, the children included in it do not have to be my first generation children or my seed. First and foremost, they have to be Abraham's children in a spiritual sense. Secondly, God adopts those whom He has decreed as elected. Every single one of these is a child of a father. God perfectly keeps His word to both His Son and Abraham in saving His seed. Because I have been adopted into a covenant not made with me, I have no reason to believe that God has also not adopted any child from my body into that number. Therefore, I will baptize my children and, if I have any influence, my grandchildren.

This can only be grasped, I believe, if one can separate the physical act and the spiritual reality of baptism. We can only see one side of this and only speculate on the other. Because we cannot know the spiritual side, we should leave that to God. He will make effectual what He has decreed. He will by no means clear the guilty, but each one will bear His wrath who is not elect in Christ.

A word on election. I have mentioned in the past that we should make a distinction in election; that it is not entirely individual. Although salvation is personal to us, we are not personal to it. Salvation is provided for the elect in Christ. Therefore, it is impertinent for us to say that Christ died for me, unless we couch these terms in the elect in Christ. Christ did not die personally for me, but for the Elect of God. I am not membered in this number because of anything I did, but because of God's sovereign choice. All of the Elect are justified, atoned for, adopted, sanctified, and glorified because of Christ's substitution.

Let's try an analogy. You are on an Island that is about to be hit by a deadly storm. There is only enough time to erect one shelter and this can only hold so many. You and all the other inhabitants draw straws to see who will enter the shelter and who will be left outside. When the storm hits, the shelter stands. Those who were in it were saved, but those who remained outside were lost.

Is that shelter your "personal savior"? No, because it saved everyone in it. You were but one individual in the company.

When we look at this analogy through God's eyes, we would see that the shelter is the practical aspect of our being saved, but we were really saved when we drew a long straw, which we know to be His sovereignty and not random chance.

Therefore, can we say that God personally saved us? Though the salvation is personal to us, God saved those He chose, a particular number and specific purpose in a specific way that is common to all. We were saved because of the choice and because of the shelter. Both of those are of God in Christ.

Even though election is individual, and God know every one of them individually, it should not be thought of individually by the one elected. I have been chosen to be in a number not because of anything I did. God saves that number and that group as a whole for His purpose and glory. Therefore, I will not glory in my individualism, but in God who saved the elect of which He graciously allowed me to be a part of.

Our relationship to the elect should ever be before our eyes. When it is thrown aside, we will surely fall into pride and vanity.

In Christ,

KC

rnmomof7 · #14 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 05:43 PM

[quote:868d3e19e2][i:868d3e19e2]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:868d3e19e2]
Josh,
First off let me clear the air in regards to the term "PR". The term itself is a misnomer of sorts. It in and of itself is not a biblical term. It seems to me that it is a term to describe the faith of the covenanters as seen through the eyes of those whom do not understand the covenant and Gods promise. Simply put, God promises something for us and our children. We, as Abraham did, believe God, prayerfully acknowledging that the same faith was accounted to Abraham as righteous.

In regards to the quote of Dr. Ryan:
"It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course".

The above is not PR...........The issue I have problem with is the "in due course" reference.

Covenant children who show later in life that they have no fruit are considered apostate.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:868d3e19e2]

I am a presbyterian that has a problem with infant Baptism.

But more than the sacrament itself (which I do not believe is necessary for salvation)
is the attitude that in some way the children of the elect have some "promise" that is not held out to the children of the lost.
A tare is a tare, no matter where or if it is churched. To apply the term apostate to me is misleading .
God will save who He will save. He is no respecter of persons . Gods grace does not require a human leg up

Joshua · #15 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 07:25 PM

Thanks, Kevin, for the insight.

Scott Bushey · #16 (**permalink**) 12-29-2003, 07:53 PM

[quote:5726244002][i:5726244002]Originally posted by rnmomof7[/i:5726244002]
[quote:5726244002][i:5726244002]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:5726244002]
Josh,
First off let me clear the air in regards to the term "PR". The term itself is a misnomer of sorts. It in and of itself is not a biblical term. It seems to me that it is a term to describe the faith of the covenanters as seen through the eyes of those whom do not understand the covenant and Gods promise. Simply put, God promises something for us and our children. We, as Abraham did, believe God, prayerfully acknowledging that the same faith was accounted to Abraham as righteous.

In regards to the quote of Dr. Ryan:
"It [baptism] signifies...that God will in due course work in this child's heart...His promise is that He will extend His saving work to your children in due course".

The above is not PR...........The issue I have problem with is the "in due course" reference.

Covenant children who show later in life that they have no fruit are considered apostate.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:5726244002]

I am a presbyterian that has a problem with infant Baptism.

But more than the sacrament itself (which I do not believe is necessary for salvation)
is the attitude that in some way the children of the elect have some "promise" that is not held out to the children of the lost.
A tare is a tare, no matter where or if it is churched. To apply the term apostate to me is misleading .
God will save who He will save. He is no respecter of persons . Gods grace does not require a human leg up [/quote:5726244002]

rnmomof7,
The children of the elect Do have a leg up! Do the children of "the lost" have a portion of Gods grace in regards to be nurtured in the admonition of the Lord? Do the children of the lost share in the blessing of a bible based home? Do the children of the lost have the fellowship of the saints in the body of Christ? What did God tell Abraham in regards to his children?

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The great commission is "outward". It reaches to them who are even "afar off".

You write:
To apply the term apostate to me is misleading

Let me clearify, covenant children whom walk away from the faith, whom have no fruit (of faith), whom live like hell, are (known biblically as) apostate.

I'm trying to see how this is relevant to you?

[Edited on 12-30-2003 by Scott Bushey]

Joshua · #17 (**permalink**) 12-30-2003, 09:00 AM

[quote:47ff2df82c]
Firstly, I ask that if you're Baptist, please do not reply. If there's something you wish to contest please do so in another thread. Secondly, if you're Paedo and wish to discuss with someone else's statement that may be a reply to me, please start a different thread on such. If I'm asking too much, then please ignore me and forgive my naive insolence. Thanks.
[/quote:47ff2df82c]