The paedobaptist baptized the children of believing parents, because they said that in the OT it was also done with the circumcision.

But is it correct to say "only" believing parents, because in the OT we see that the childeren of apostasy parenst were also circumcised ?

So if you made the link of circumcision and baptism, why not also baptizing parents who are in apostasy as it was in the OT ? Or are you diong this ?

__________________
* Ralph Wilms (7-10-1974)
* Church : Christengemeente Roermond (The Netherlands)
* Credobaptist who hold towards Covenant Theology
* Husband of Reena & father of Naomie and Gideon
* 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith
* 1646 & 1689 Baptist Confession of faith
* 1595 The Lambeth Articles
* 1618-1619 The Canons of Dordt

Ralph,

Israel is the "type" in the OT of which the antetype in the NT is the church, made up of all those who profess Christ (whether they truly walk with him or not). The command to the 'church' in the old testament (national Israel) was to apply the covenant sign and seal to their children as the promise was to them and their children. The instruction was to all those born into (or married into, or grafted into) the national of Israel, the church.

Covenant breakers in the OT may still have applied the sign of the covenant, but to them it meant nothing.

The command exists today to the church as it did in the OT. The church is now universal though (not limited to one nation as it was in the OT) yet the mode has now changed - baptism replaces circumcision.

The sign is to be applied to all those who believe, and children of believers. Someone professing faith in Christ is eligible to be baptised (if they have not been already) and may bring their children to be baptised based upon the same promised, reaffirmed in the new covenant.

Unbelievers or covenant breakers in the NT church cannot bring their children to be baptised as they have no grounds for doing so. They must first repent and be brought into the church before they can claim this covenant promise.


Matt

__________________
Matthew Glover
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia

I am not convinced of that Matt

I private correspondence with Rev. Stewart he pointed out to me that

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Richard,

Forgive my ignorance, but which Rev. Stewart are you referring to?

Matt

Would you like to present the example of the apostasized parents in the Scriptures that presented their child for circumcision?

I don't agree at all that "...in the OT we see that the children of apostasized parents were also circumcised...."

Where? Verse please.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

Rev Angus Stewart (Covenant Protestant Reformed Church)

And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Did not I deliver you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines?The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more.Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
Judges 10:11-14

Ok, my daughter was baptized and as such, at least as a child, she was considered "holy", correct? This is what the paedo argument would say scripture teaches? What does that mean exactly? Say she remains in unbelief as she is in now and dies in that state. Would she have been better off dying as an infant when she was considered "holy"? If her being baptized did not mean that she was "saved" as she clearly is not, then what did it mean exactly?

__________________
Adam Leavelle
Westminster OPC
Roaring Spring Pa.

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

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

Richard, the typology component of my original reply is not material to the point being made on the basis of that which you have granted, which is that Israel is the church in the OT. There is continuity in the way God deals with His church not withstanding that the church was limited to one nation previously and is now universal in the new covenenant in Christ.

Matt

Adam,

I have relatives a similar situation as you with two of their daughters and understand that they agonise over the situation from time to time, as you may do.

It meant to your daughter that she was being included in the visible church by way of the promise to her believing parents. That on the basis that it was presumed she would be elect that you raised her to call God her Heavenly Father, that she was subject to the means of grace (reading & preaching of the Word) regularly. In her case, she is now an adult (from what I understand) and you still wait for the time when God will call her into a walk by faith with Christ. May God do so quickly.

Matt

Ok, I can see that, I just don't see it clearly in scripture. Maybe that's my problem though. It sounds very much like "dedications" of babies many non-reformed churches have. It's about what you "mean" to do, and or what you "hope" for your child.

This answer fails to provide the answer I was asking for. You stated that the Old Covenant permitted apostates to present their children for circumcision. The above quotation has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you to provide. Where is circumcision mentioned? Where is the Lord sanctioning the circumcision of the children of apostates in this passage.

I need you to provide an exegetical example of your assertion. You made an assertion but have not backed it up with any Scripture.

I'm not saying that it was permitted, but where does scripture say it is forbidden? Wouldn't a passage such as this refute this claim?

I don't answer theoretical questions about things God keeps hidden but I will Confess what I believe.

I wonder if you've actually studied the WCF and the Heidelberg on the significance of Baptism.

1. She was joined to the visible Church.
2. She was promised forgiveness of sins and union with Christ on condition of faith in Christ.

If a person does not believe then it does not make the promise void.

It is better, therefore, not to worry about consequences as much as to enjoin the baptized to believe in the Gospel and inherit what they were promised in their baptism.

Things might have been helped, as well, if the Elders of a Church had called her to repentance when she was of age to reject the faith. At that point, rebellion needs to be answered with Church discipline. Apostasy is easier than it should be.

It really is not that complicated.

What? Why does the Scripture have to answer every speculative question that man dreams up? I made no claim. I asked Mayflower to provide Scriptural support for his assertion that the OT sanctions the circumcision of the children of apostates. Where?

So those not baptized are not promised these things? I'm certain that's not true, but one could infer that. One becomes "part of the church" through belief, correct? Paedobaptism has always seemed very, very complicated to me. I see it as "word calisthenics".

Stretch, stretch, reach, reach, pull, pull, push, push...hold it....hold it.....there! Nice fit! Mean while I am standing there in immense pain hoping my spiritual muscles don't rip and tear as I struggle to keep the position.

I was just asking if this were the case as I wasn't certain. If not, I am not implying that means anything.

You see, these are the kind of statements I continually see from Paedo's. Surely you must be "unlearned" if you don't see what is plainly there. Surely you are in sin and in need of repentance or you would grasp the simple truth, thank God I am not a (ignorant) baptist, etc. etc.

I am not angered by those comments but I am certainly not endeared toward the position of those who speak them.

Baptism is an Ecclesiastical and a Spiritual sacrament. God is the one that applies the benefits but that does not alter the fact that the Church contains ministers that have the authority to ministerially bind and loose. That is, they have the authority to join members to the visible fellowship of the Church and to remove them. Thus, what a minister does is not magic or "word calistenics."

1. God has given the Church the authority to join people to the visible Church.
2. The minister has the authority to declare God's promise to the baptized party. It does not confer the benefits but those present can hear God's promise being uttered by one of His appointed ministers and "take that promise to the bank" as it were.
3. God is the one who applies the benefits spiritually.

You cannot take all three sentences and mashe them all together into one thing. The minister is not saving the child (or any baptized party). God does not merely unite men to Christ but declares things to His Church with His ministers.

I don't see any strain going on Adam. Maybe you can point out the stretching and tearing above. Unless the Holy Spirit comes down and fills a man so that He can declare "this child is united to Christ" then we only have visible declarations and promises. We don't see the spiritual union in any orthodox confession (not even Baptist confessions).

People who get uncomfortable that more must be going on start forcing baptism to convey power within itself. They begin insisting that the Priest conveys grace or that actual union with Christ is granted.

I'm telling you that it's as simple as:

1. Ministerially joined to the visible Church.
2. Ministerally promised salvation and union with Christ on condition of faith.
3. God is the one who confers the benefits to His elect.

We do the first two on the basis of things revealed.
God does the third on the basis of His Sovereign and hidden will.

It wasn't an insult Adam. Why, unless it stings human pride to admit ignorance, would you find that offensive?

I've said many ignorant things here and elsewhere. People ask me: Have you read this? I state that I have not and sometimes retract.

I'm asking you because your questions and answers indicate you actually have not. Usually people who have read something and understand it will object according to what is believed. Why would you ask the question above if you understood our Confession on this point?

I suppose I'm not seeing the difference between understand and agree. I understand the points being made, but I can't agree for reasons I'm not sure I can fully explain. If that makes me ignorant, then I suppose I am.

1) Does belief allow this, baptism? Both? If not just belief why is that not a problem? If both, why not just belief?

2) Does God's word not already declare God's promises? Do we need a minister to make it "official"? I see that you've said it allows others to hear it and "take it to the bank", that's cute but not an absolute must, right?

3) As is always the case, he doesn't need anything to happen outside of faith (that He gives anyway) correct?

This is where that stretching comes in for me as I see paedobaptism naturally leading to this kind of thinking. But maybe that's just my ignorance again.

Samuel Rutherford draws attention to Joshua 5, where the children of the rebellious wilderness generation are circumcised. (Peaceable and Temperate Plea, 165-167.) He shows that John the Baptist baptised Jerusalem and Judea