And I can use Paedo's against paedo's. No big deal.

__________________

R. Martin Snyder

1689erPuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page
"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Good.

a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that only the paedo camp is divided. Glad we realize the baptists who have made much of this (cf. Malone, Baptism of Disciples Alone) are not being square with the facts.

b) I haven't seen you use any against ay of *my* arguments.

c) Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devasting point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out.

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

I don't know of any Baptists that would say that they all agree with each other. You often make claims that just confound me. But I have come to expect that from you.

I have read quite a few books on Baptism as you have. I would rather just keep my arguments based upon what I understand the scriptures saying. And as you know, I have to work a little harder at it than some do. I speak better for Randy Snyder than for any Baptist or Presby.


Devastating in your own mind maybe. It has had little effect upon me. BTW, Lane told me he would be responding to my discussion with him tomorrow. And it wasn't him I was discussing Jewett with. It was someone else. I believe you're getting facts mixed up again.

TTFN

I am picking up that some believe that the covenant with Abraham is bifurcated from the covenant with Moses.

However, the following texts seem to indicate otherwise...

Exodus 2:24
And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Deuteronomy 4:31
For the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them.

Deuteronomy 7:12
"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers.

Deuteronomy 8:18
You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 29:25
Then people will say, 'It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,


Deuteronomy 31:20
For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant.

Doesn't covenant theology assert that all the covenants flow into and from each other in succession under the auspices of the one Covenant of Grace?

Therefore, it seems to me that the promise was given to believers and their seed under the Abrahamic administration as well as the Mosaic, and of course in the New. The difference is, while the nature of the promise hasn't changed (to believers and their seed), the new covenant a) fulfills the promise made to Abraham by means of the Great Commission, and b) removes the Gentiles and Jews from having to live under the Mosaic system as a way of life (temples, priests, sacrifices, etc. That is not to say the Decalogue has no place in our lives).

I'm a bit new to this--so comments are welcome if I need to be corrected.
Think Spring Midwesterners!

__________________
sincerely,
mark
member 1st Christian Reformed Church (don't freak out on me, now)
Grand Haven, MI
www.vanallsblog.blogspot.com
Question: How do you know which eye of John Murray's was the glass eye?
Answer: It was the one with the most compassion.

Mark,

There are some promises that just pertain to Abraham and his posterity that are neither CofW or CofG. They are just covenantal promises made to Abraham concerning his posterity. An examination of Genesis 17 will reveal this.

Randy!

I didn't say that any Baptists said that they all agreed with each other. Where'd you get that idea? I said that many Baptists have made it a point to point out that paedobaptists disagree with eachother (i.e., other paedobaptists). I referred you to one such place, Dr. Fred Malone's book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone. T.E. Watson's Baptism Not For Infants, is another. Baptists have made much hay out of the claim that "paedobaptists authors can be used to refute each other." I was simply saying that I can now say this about them. So, if this has *always* been the case, then you are tacitly admitting that those Baptists were using stupid arguments to refute paedobaptists! Well, thanks Randy!

My books are all packed away right now so I can't give exact page numbers of specific references, but this should be enough substantiate my claim:

Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."

So, not only didn't you understand my comment (which happens a lot), you also pointed out that these popular ways of arguing have been successfully met head on by myself.

Okay. But I, for one, will not use only the Bible. I will also pull on extra-biblical support (can't interpret the Bible in a vacuum). And, I will also appeal to any Baptist, paedobaptist, Roman Catholic, Arminian, or even apostate or any one else who happens to interpret a passage right, or shed some light on it which bears on its exegesis (say, a pagan archeologist).


1. In both mine and Jewett's mind, maybe.

2. I already said I didn't expect it to have an "effect" on you. So, this is no surprise, or worry, to me. I, for one, think Jewett's point is great, I see no way around it, and you just threw up some prayer of a possible response. Certainly you didn’t expect me to be convinced by that, I'm, sure. So, we're all even Steven on this score. I have the word of a scholar on one hand, you had a fly-by-night "maybe" as a rejoinder. I'm totally fine leaving it at that.

3. I know what Lane told you.

4. I know that it wasn’t him who you were discussing Jewett with.

5. I never said it was. Rather, I said:

Originally posted by Tom Bombadil: "Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devastating point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out."

So, I was talking about the verses that Lane pointed out, and your interpretation of those verses. Notice all I said Green Baggins pointed out to you were verses. And, all I said you interacted with him on was your interpretation of those verses. Not on Jewett. The grammar of my sentence cannot lead one to believe that I intimated that you and Green Baggins were discussing Jewett.

So, it's a real head-scratcher how you came up with that interpretation of my comment. A mystery. Cue Colombo music.

6. So, no facts mixed up here. "Again," or otherwise. Unlike what we've seen multiple times on your end. But, let's not degenerate this into a petty squabble. Seems like correcting your mixing of the facts about what I said, and letting the accusations go, is the only thing that should get an "again" put next to it.

Anyway, have a good evening!

[quote=PuritanCovenanter;376266]Yes, and so does the Hebrews 11 passage, which states that Noah constructed an ark for the saving of his HOUSEHOLD.

The household was certainly saved from the flood. But we learn later that Ham was most DEFINITELY not regenerate (Genesis 9:25). Do you believe that Ham was really regenerate?

Regarding I Cor 7:14, his beef is with the fact about the unbelieving spouse being "sanctified." He wonders why they are not considered for baptism the same as the "holy children." I thought I made my point clear there, but apparently not. It again relates to how other non-professing members of the household are viewed by God under the authority of at least one believing spouse.

The issue of the households is whether or not the other members besides Lydia and the jailer made a profession of faith. I am convinced from the texts, as presented in my original post, that they did not. Yet, they were still baptized. Again, we are not presented with any information about gender or age. Why? Because it didn't matter. Anyone under Lydia's or the jailer's authority, or Stephanas' authority (I Cor. 1) received the sign.

__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage Church (Independent)
Oklahoma City, OK

Neither CofW or CofG? The CofW was with Adam. And if the CofG is the one covenant that binds them all (was Tolkein on to something), saying the covenant w/ Abraham somehow is related to the covenant of works doesn't make any sense.

Maybe I'll just start a new thread. But Genesis 17 says, Abraham's covenant is an eternal one, and that Abraham would be the father of many nations.
How does divvying up the covenat of Abraham into separate parts, some part of the CofW, some part of the CofG and some part of Cofsomethingelse make any sense at all? I ask this out of sincerity and respect.

Maybe you meant that kings would come from Abraham and you mean this is Part 3 of the Covenant w/ Abraham. But David and indeed Christ himself are kings and part of Abraham's seed.

The promise of Abraham to be the father of many nations is called an "everlasting covenant. Even the rite of circumcision is called an "everlasting covenant," fulfilled in baptism in the new covenant. The same language is said of Isaac--this is an everlasting covenant. The same phrase is used in the covenant w/ Abraham. There are many promises, all under one promise fulfilled by Christ the true Seed of Abraham.

I don't see any Part 3 of the covenant w/ Arbraham that is not part of the CofG. The CofW is fulfilled by Christ too. This should all be understood as Christ fulfilling the CofG--which is the covenant of promise (Eph 2:10ff).

Tom,

This is what you said.

I still find this to be lacking in substance. Where did someone suggest or give the impression that the paedo camp is the only camp divided? Their is a difference between saying that only the paedo camp is divided and that the paedo camp is divided on this subject. That is what I was responding to. Rabbit trails. You are good at them. You are skilled in argumentation. That is for sure.

And you were correct. We were dealing with Jewetts point on the passage. I got tired and mixed up in my conversations. I was also dealing with Mark on Jewett also. I just think that Jewett is wrong. Jesus is teaching a Kingdom Principle here and exposing a truth as I noted before. That is a different kind of genre in literature than a record of someone who is calling for your someones head in a historical setting. Sorry I was getting tired and as I noted before I have to work at things a little harder. Sorry for getting off page and being accusatory in a bad manner.

You know... our conversations would go much easier if you would quit acting like we are in a contest to one up each other in the outset of our discussions. For instance you saying I get the points or I am winning. (Just to be honest, that just sets me in off) You don't have everything correct. And if you think you do, you have problems. I don't think I understand everythng. There are better ways to help people understand. I have asked you to help me understand some stuff before but you are in constant debate mode. Learn a different mode of teaching brother and you will get along better here.

Mark,

Where does this fit into the Abrahamic Covenant? Isn't the promises concering Ishmael a part of the Covenant made with Abraham? There is an everlasting part of the Abrahamic Covenant that Ishmael was not included in. Abraham asked God if Ishmael could partake in it but God said no.

There are two different promises here that God set before Abraham.

That along with the passages in Galatians 4 about two Covenants makes me consider this.

Lane,
Thank you for your reply to my post concerning Acts 2;
you said this;
Lane, with your second paragraph, especially as this important theme is a thread that is behind many NT. portions.
I do not agree that because Psalm 2, or psalm 110 language is also added to the mix, that this in any way changes the use of Psalm 16 speaking of Christ being raised by the Spirit.
Psalm 16 does not mention the Spirit directly, but Peter does Acts2:24,33
The promise of the Father of Acts 1:4, finds fulfillment here-as well as Acts 11:15-16
Interesting that in reference to the household being saved, he says
"who shall tell thee words" whereby thou and "thy household shall be saved"
This is why I believe the reformed baptist position addresses biblically the important area of household's. The reality of the promise as an actual reality happens in this way.
In the case of elect infants dying in infancy, or mentally defective persons God in His mercy does right at all times with each of these persons.
Psalm 110/Mel-priesthood/ kingly reign Psalm 2 are added to show how all scripture points to our Lord. These do not negate the reality of the promise which the Lord had beagn to instruct them on in John 14, 15, 16

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

[quote=PuritanCovenanter;376214]
Thanks Pastor,

I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly.


Okay, let's look at Luke 18 very carefully. Verse 15 states that infants were brought to Jesus in order that Jesus might touch them. What is this word "infants?" The Greek word is "brephe." Every lexicon I checked says that it means "infant," not even "small child." In fact, the word is often used of fetuses. So, I am not sure how you can say that we shouldn't assume that infants were present. That is what the word means. Infants were brought to Jesus. Therefore, infants were present.

Secondly, the words "of such" in verse 16 are a genitive possessive. Literally translated, the passage would read: "The kingdom of God is of these such." It is by no means exclusive of the infants brought to Him in verse 15, but inclusive, as has been pointed out on this thread. The kingdom of God is possessed by such as these. To say that this should be spiritualized to mean "the faith of such as these" does not help the credo position, since even that statement assumes that these little children have faith which is to be imitated! However, it is best not to import the meaning of Matthew 18:2-3 into this passage. They do not say the same thing.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Then I am at a loss as to how you can claim that Acts 2:38-39 are a direct reference to the Psalm 16 quotation.

The household language of the jailor can only be handled correctly by the paedo position. Only the jailor believed, but his entire household was baptized. It does not say in the text anywhere that the household also believed.

I don't have a problem with the fact that infants were brought to Jesus for a blessing. I would have done the same thing as a parent. I did seek for God's blessing upon my children as babies through prayer on a constant basis. For their physical as well as their spiritual health.

I am not convinced that this bringing the infants of verse 15 is looking for a covenantal blessing though. Nor do I see it as a support for baptism in the fact that these children are already most likely already circumcised. I don't see these parents doing anything any different than I did in my beseeching the Lord to bless my kids when they were infants. I have also noticed that for some reason the Greek word changes to paidion when the Lord starts to teach concerning the Kingdom of God in verse 16.

Well, here is what I have to work with in these passages. The greek in verse 16 and 17 which I am more pointedly speaking on implies that the passage may in fact mean more than an infant.

So according to other references it can be other than an infant. I find it significant that the greek changes the word here and the action that these children are able to perform.

The word receive (dechomai) is closely associated with the same word little child (paidion). Recieving is something that this child is capable of doing is it not?


I do believe the Kingdom of God is for infants. And I do believe God even blesses those outside of the Covenant. This is a hard topic for me to understand because the Kingdom of God is not ambiguous about who the Kingdom of God is for. In fact the following passages (v.16, 17) spell that out. And to be more specific the Kingdom of God is for the Elect. The Covenant of Grace is only for the Elect. I don't think Jesus is saying that it is for every infant. I do believe that God can give a blessing that might not be eternal in nature. Maybe I am wrong.