JM,

Would you agree with what I wrote about "commands" in the second post of this thread?

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

Br. Tom, I'll have to read it again when I get back from thai boxing.

Until then, peace and God bless.

j

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada -

Feileadh Mor
The Orthodox Catechism

Richard, the same applies to adults. We grant them the judgement of charity. Only the Lord knows who are elect, and therefore who are true believers.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

As Diego Montoya (you know the guy who had his father killed by the 6 fingered man in the Princess Bride) would say: this word you are using, it does not mean what you think it does.
[/quote]


It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.

Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.

__________________
Donald Jacobs
Marysville. WA
Cascade Church (CRCNA)

Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.

Hi Paul,
Good question. I will agree that it is possible to have commands that are not explicit. One example, which you have already brought up, is the Trinity. We are commanded, through individual commands (to worship God, not blaspheme the HS, proclaim Christ, etc.), to worship the Trinity. The command is almost explicit, except it does not say specifically to worship the Trinity because it never explicitly deals directly with the Trinity. Having said that, I would say that there does need to be a clear command in order biblical, whether it's explicit or not (the example of the Trinity should suffice). The example you give of whether or not we are commanded to repent is interesting. I find it hard to work through because the command is clear, "repent and be baptized." And the Old Testament drips with the need for repentance. Furthermore, I know that you believe that it is a clear commandment, which makes it a bit difficult to grapple with in the vein you're pursuing.
I will disagree with Malone's statement that Scripture says to baptize believers only. I've already dealt with that. Rather I would say that Scripture explicitly states only that we are baptize believers. It says no more. It also might be helpful, at this point, to give us a clear definition of "inference." I know how I would use it, but you might see it in a broader sense than I would. From my understanding, I would be very hesitant to say that inferences equal commands. Furthermore, inferences deduced from inferences are very tenuous and generally equate to a departure from truth. It's much like possibilities derived from possibilities equal improbabilities and eventually impossibilities.
Paul, I've tried to share some thoughts as I read through what you wrote. Hopefully this will give you enough of my own thoughts to give a good clear reply. Or, maybe it is just a confusing mess of jumbled thoughts with no cohesion.



I'm with Randy on the rest. There's just too much going on in this thread to grasp a hold of it all.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Married up in 1988 and blessed with two wonderful sons
TMS graduate
Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI
SoundLife.org

Short note: Mr. Manata, I did not mention the Gentiles. Here is my exact quote:
My point was that peter said that the promise of the H.S. was for those who repent and are baptized.
You replied with this strawman:
Notice that you bring up the "Gentile issue", not me. But then you commence to burn that strawman while your buddies defend you.

If this is the nature of the PuritanBoard, then I may not have any time for such games.
The little I had heard about this forum was positive for the most part, but it seems to me like a bunch of guys who circle the wagon when one of their own is at fault.
This is sad.

__________________
~ Destined to Know Him ~
Jason E. Robertson
a Pastor of Murrieta Valley Church, CA
FIDE-O

Yes, I was going to mention that.
After all, how can we trust the theology of a man that can't get the Princess Bride right?
lol
Just kidding!

__________________
Dale Cosby
Kirklin, Indiana
Member of Faith and Family Baptist Church
Independent and Reforming Baptist.

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever

Don't take it too easy on your shins. Pain is good, extreme pain is extremely good. :-)

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

Friend, you really should allow some time to see the PB at work (Puritan board, not paedobaptist, but I suppose it applies to both), before making such judgements. By a process of interaction we sharpen our communication skills. You have a prime opportunity to do that here. Non-paedos have tried to show you that your tack with relation to Paul Manata is non-beneficial. You would do well to at least weigh up what is being said.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

No, you didn't explicitly mention the Gentiles. You mentioned "all." And, you mentioned "believers." You furthermore said that the promise of the HS was not for "all the children of believers" but for 'all who repent."

So you meant, "all the Jews and their children, and their children's children?" And, "all Jewish belivers?" but not all "believers," as you say? And, the HS was not for "all the children of Jewish believers?"

I think the context is clear and your *meaning* clear.

Anyway, if you're saying you agree with my renditioning, then that's a major problem for your baptistic and individualistic interpretation of the text. Why would the HS be promised to the Jews, and their children, and their children's children? Tell me, if you will, how would the Jews have interpreted this?

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

Jason, as a fellow credo, I often feel outnumbered on the scriptural view of baptism. Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks . Please do judge the board based on this thread. I have always had a love hate relationship with the board, but it is because these men have a passion to get God's word right and so in standing for God's word as sole truth, we often but heads. We are all sharpening ourselves to the word of God, and in doing so, we must be cut.

__________________
Wes Faulk
Southern Baptist
Oklahoma

It's not the same ordinance. It is the same in substance. They signify the same thing.

Paul did it so that the Jews would not be hindered from having Timothy join Paul in his missionary work to them. He did this, interestingly enough, in the shadow of the Church council that had just concluded. I fear, unfortunately, that too many Baptists read Galatians very uncarefully regarding what circumcision means in its different uses. To haphazardly read Paul and assume that he speaks of circumcision in one way is to miss his very important points.

Yes, exactly, it is ALL of God, which is why the significance of our baptism is not found inside of us. I don't make a mistake of conflating (mashing together) sign and thing signified. Baptism signifies circumcision of the heart, union with Christ, remission of sins, etc. The sacrament signifies them but is not them per se. Yet, it is silly to say, when Paul talks about baptism of the Spirit and circumcision without hands to say that baptism and circumcision are disconnected. You keep looking at the outward sign, I keep pointing to their significance. If you Read Romans 4 you will note that Circumision signified union with Christ. Baptism signifies the same.

Absolutely not. Again, this is a projection of Baptist thought upon the Sacrament. I have labored to show that the sign is extra nos outside of ourselves. As Rev. Winzer pointed out in another thread, Romans 3:3 points out that man's failure to embrace a Promise doesn't nullify its significance. Interestingly, it is the Baptist view that brings man into the equation and keeps changing around the significance of a sign based on the recipient. This is why it is common for you to say that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. Whose inwards? The man who receives it.

Also, you completely miss the point in the equation. As a means of Grace, God is the one who Elects not based on willing or running but works through means. Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.

Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.

No, Jesus baptized to (or others baptized under His authority). This is why the Apostles and the rest of the disciples had already received Christian Baptism at the time of Pentecost. You see, my understanding of the Sacrament is not overthrown by the fact that Judas was baptized but it literally destroys the significance if you acknowledge the the Son of God Himself knowingly had an unbeliever baptized.

Well, I wouldn't excommunicate a child but the Elders would. A child would be disciplined on the basis of open, unrepentant sin just like any other believer. I'm not sure why this is so intriguing.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

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?

I repent in dust and ashes.

I wish to make a public statement to all Baptists on the PuritanBoard.

I WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT I SAID

about Inigo Montoya

Now, prepare to die!

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

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?

I am printing Rich's post and having it framed. It will hang just below my double portrait of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

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

Why did Peter add, "and to your children" in Acts 2:39?


"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children."
The Baptist assumes the children must repent.


If someone said,
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."
Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?

__________________
David Cronkhite, Elder
Pasadena United Reformed Church

"I count myself one of the number of those
who write as they learn, and learn as they write."

I have shin splints from running, it seems I'm always in pain.

Your second post is very well written, I'll have to think on it a little more, this topic comes up so often that I get tired of reading and thinking about it. I'll send you a pm in a short while.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada -

Feileadh Mor
The Orthodox Catechism

It's Inconceivable!

And that's probably all I want to say on this particular thread!

__________________

ATTENTION TO ALL.

Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.

This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.

I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!

__________________
~ Destined to Know Him ~
Jason E. Robertson
a Pastor of Murrieta Valley Church, CA
FIDE-O