I'm sorry for poisoning the well. Let me rephrase...

You just said it for me.

The instrument of salvation is faith alone. If you want to poison the well, you might as well state that I believe salvation comes by family. I didn't say this. Of course the two propositions are not mutually exclusive as if family has nothing to do with faith. How many Baptists are there in Saudi Arabia anyhow?

If you would read this again then you would see I noted the necessity of corporate repentance and that men live lives of repentance. You do not, however, walk up to a man who is in good standing and tell him to repent and to begin worshipping the True God if, for 10 years, you assume he has been. That was my point. Please read more carefully.

Well, yes, I just said that it would from your standpoint.
The confidence I have is a God who elects. The confidence I have is that, like other disciples, they are members of good standing in the Body where the Gospel is proclaimed.
If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?

__________________
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?

...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."

What basis do we believe our children are elect?

Speaking of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 30 we read: "This is what the LORD says: " 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob's tents and have compassion on his dwellings; From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. I will add to their numbers, and they will not be decreased; Their children will be as in days of old, and their community will be established before me, Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them" 'So you will be my people, and I will be your God.' "

Talking about the time of the New Covenant Jeremiah says “At that time, saith Jehovah, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:1).

Again, referring to the times of the New Covenant, the Lord says through Ezekiel in chapter 37: 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them.”

Zech 10 reads, "And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, And I shall save the house of Joseph, And I shall bring them back, Because I have had not rejected them. And their heart will be glad as if from wine; Indeed, their children will see it and be glad, Their heart will rejoice in the LORD. "I will whistle for them to gather them together, For I have redeemed them; And they will be as numerous as they were before. "When I scatter them among the peoples, They will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”

In the last book of the Old Testament we read about John the Baptist and part of what his mission entailed: Mal 4:5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”

And what, according to the New Testament, is the reason for this?: Luke 1:17 "And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

This is in contrast to what would happen to the breakdown between the fathers and children of the Old Covenant because of God’s covenantal curses brought upon them. Ezekiel 5:10 “Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers.”

The New Covenant restores the people of God. As Jeremiah had stated -- at that time I will be a God to the families of New Covenant Israel, and that they will be my people. And Zech 10:8-10 "I will whistle for them to gather them, they will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”

The Mother of Jesus applies the Old Testament idea of covenantal succession to her day and every day after that: Luke 2:48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 "and his mercy is upon generation after generation, toward those who fear Him.”

In Jeremiah 31:33 New Covenant members will have God’s law written upon their heart. Why would this mean a removal of the children of covenant members when Hosea says that because the law was not on the Old Covenant members heart this meant their children were cast off? “Because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children”(4:6). Wouldn’t New Covenant Jews, who were familiar with Hosea mind you, at least have asked for clarification if the Apostles had told them that their children were not part of God’s people? “You mean the law is on our heart, but our children are still forgotten!? They don’t, as Jeremiah said, return with us? Please explain!” Perhaps they didn’t ask that because they were too busy having numerous debates about the inclusion of Gentiles. Note that. The New Testament notes numerous heated debates the church had over Gentiles being included among the covenant people. It was unexpected so much so that even the Apostle Peter had to have a private talk with God in order to get with the program. But what did these Jewish Christians do when they found out their own children had been excluded? Surely they debated much more vigorously than they had about the inclusion of the Gentiles, right? If the Jews were debating over the inclusion of the Gentiles, how much more would they have debated the exclusion of their own children? But in the New testament we find utter silence. But, that silence is deafening.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Paul,
I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:
You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.

You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true. I was born-again at age seven and baptized. A good friend of mine, at age five. My son, at age 8. I have another son who has professed faith and is seemingly growing in wisdom and practical righteousness and we look forward to his soon baptism. I am so thankful that my parents did not rob me of the cognitive decision I made to be baptized, to obey the Scripture and publicly confess my baptism into Christ. The joy that I see on people's faces, including the day I baptized my Dad, my wife, and my son, -- Oh I am so glad that they were able to experience that glorious day of being baptized in obedience to Scripture. The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith." Alright, I know that is not exactly what you are saying --but that is what it sounds like to us.

So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.

The irony is, Baptist have baptized some children numerous times!!!! But that is a different issue, but it does illustrate how false your presupposition is.

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

Paul,
Nice burning of this strawman:

Here is the disconnect. Now you said I poisoned the well by noting that you are conditioned to think of profession as being some sort of rock solid guarantee (I didn't say you thought it was a guarantee but just some sort of rock solid guarantee).

Notice how you let slip the way you feel about this:

Professors are those in the Church by spiritual birth.
Children of Professors are those in the Church by physical birth.

Seriously, Jason, can't you see the presumption you are making? How can you fault me saying it's some sort of rock solid guarantee for you when you make the rock solid claim that professors are necessarily spiritually re-born and children of professors are simply those of physical birth?

See, we wouldn't presume either to be of that category. I do not have enough information on the mind of God to look at the visible Church and say: "That one is not regenerated."

[side bar]

Rev. Winzer,

Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be converted, but that doesn't necessarily show itself in repentance.

In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?

[/side bar]

__________________
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."

Rich, this statement
... is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.

Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.

Lets look at a hypothetical to make this a little more... unclear.

If your church had 100 children born to families in your congregation over the last 25 years and so did mine, and your church baptized all 100 and our church baptized all 100 over the 25 years -- does this discussion matter? I think it does, because the issue is not about children but about the definition of "baptism" and the nature of the visible church.

But lets say that 10 of your children apostatized and so did 10 of ours. Both of our churches would grieve over this. And we would say I remember when those 10 made a credible profession of faith and we baptized them, but they went out from us because they were never truly converted. What would your church's feelings be? I'm sure the same.

Now lets say that your church baptized all 100 and 25 apostatized. But our church only baptized 75 because the other 25 never had a credible profession. Which scenario would give a clearer testimony as to the true nature of the New Covenant? Which scenario was more in sync with God's election and will?

I obviously have more confidence in the credo approach to baptism than the paedo approach. Hopefully you can see why? My only desire is to reflect God's will, and be in sync with the mind of Christ as a church, and to give God glory in all things including WHO we baptize and WHY? If we have no credible reasons to believe that God has baptized them into Christ and Christ is their federal head, then we cannot in clear conscience put the sign of the NC upon them. And we don't feel Scripture is silent -- but sufficiently clear to baptize those who repent and believe.

Sincerely,

I understand your motivation for it. I don't agree that it is a Scriptural motivation obviously but you ought not perceive that as a personal slight. As I stated before the calculus is relatively simple:

1. All who have ever been saved are united to Christ.
2. This was true before and after the Mosaic Administration.
3. The community of faith (visible Church) has always been a means for the conversion of God's elect.
4. God not only commands a thing but provides the very means to help toward that end.

What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end. All the hypotheticals about 25 going apostate here and 75 believing there focus too much on the apostate. The apostate and the reprobate cannot shipwreck God's plan. The reprobate cannot be dissuaded from being reprobate or encouraged to be reprobate by being more careful to treat them as reprobate.

Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".

And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

To me, all your theoretical concerns about what people are saying about a perfect Covenant that cannot be corrupted by anything that man tries to do against it pale in comparison against the very obvious ways in which that false dichotomy undermines the whole program of training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

That is correct, I would never deny the necessity of conversion. Certainly metanoia can be understood of conversion, but I interpreted our Baptist friend as referring to repentance in the strict theological idea of the term, as "turning" or altering the course of one's life. According to my understanding an infant of believers has no "turning" to do since he is brought up IN the Lord.

In reflecting on this discussion and others like it, I can see that the revivalistic view of regeneration/conversion creates difficulties for some. When did conversion and/or repentance become a one time event in reformed theology? There appears to be a revivalistic view of conversion meshed in with the reformed ordo salutis to create an almost legalistic understanding of personal salvation. We need to remember that the ordo salutis is not a chronological but a logical order, and that the Spirit of God works according to His own sovereign will in each case.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

You are a great help to me in sorting this out. Thank you.

Rich you said:
That is a false assumption on your part that has caused you to once again claim something false about me and reformed Baptist.

Such false presuppositions lead to more, like this one
There are so many things wrong about this line of thinking.
#1 -- you seem to suggest that baptized infants have more of a CHANCE to get saved than non baptized ones. I guess you can prove that there are more Presbyterians in the invisible church than not??? Gosh, I don't want my kid to have less of a means of grace than yours... give me a cup of water!
#2 -- do you think that unbaptized kids are welcomed in our church???
#3 -- do you think that during our family devotions and prayer time, I only allow my baptized son to participate, but make my other children sit out on the porch???

Come on Rich, this is why Baptist hear this kind of stuff and do more than just disagree -- it is down right insulting.

But I am sure you have no intentions of being offensive, so I was just making note of what happens among many.

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?
No, I don't base baptism on a probability calculus that one might be more elect than another. It's not a danger I'm accustomed to. I actually believe your children are in the Covenant. I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.
No, I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.
Do you allow them to pray? If so, on what basis? Who is mediating their prayers in your mind if you are not presuming them regenerated in some sense?

I am very happy when Baptists train their kids. I just wish they wouldn't go out of their way to claim that they are unregenerate.

It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to confidently presume that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.

Paul,
You asked a question and I responded. I wasn't sure if it was just a curiosity for you, or if you missed my response.
Baptism is a means of convertion? I can't buy this. In fact, I have to think you misspoke, unless your talking about the spiritual reality.
And to say that my "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" is completely foreign to my thinking. If you read my post from about three posts ago you'll see that I see it as a vital part of declaring the Gospel, which I do and encourage from the earliest of ages. I wholeheartedly would agree tha this is usually left out of witnessing, which shouldn't be. Obviously Phillip included it, or the eunich would have no idea about baptism. Of course this nullifies your comment on Romans 4-8, so I'll drop it here.


Actually, haven't you heard of the new litmus test the SBC has come out with? It's great. Just take a specimen, dip the little paper in, and if it turns purple then voilla, you have a new born Christian. The rabbit test was too inconsistent, so they were pretty excited about it when this one came out.
Profession is all we have. If one claims Christ then who am I do withhold baptism? Prior to baptism they get to share their testimony and declare publicly their faith in Christ. Remember Jesus' words, if one "says" they repent then we forgive them. It doesn't say that we forgive them when we know they have repented. The same would go for baptism.

It really destroys nothing. Again, I accept the testimony of one who claims to believe. This argument accomplishes nothing.

Because no age was given. A five year old is a habitual liar. He lies, is confronted, lies, is confronted, etc. Is he excommunicated. If so, what does excommunication look like for a 5 year old? Is he put in day care, left home or what?

Not a good argument because it claims the text says something it doesn't. This was dealt with earlier in this thread.
This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.

Rich, if you see disciples as students, then our children absolutely are disciples. If you mean it to be "little believers" (as some do), then you are correct in your above assessment. And I absolutely agree that "they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age." And it is acknowledged that they can be believers without vocalizing it properly. However, we cannot know/think that they are until they can properly give testimony of their faith.

Suspicious eye... Hmmm. Actually, I do this with my baptized children. I think they're both saved. They've both given credible testimony and their lives reflect it in many ways. But they still lean on my faith to a great degree. I still challenge them on their salvation. I'd rather challenge them on their salvation than take it for granted and find out, too late, that they were never saved.
This is really wierd. Who thinks this way?

Jason makes some good points above.


Much speculation and attempting to corner the Baptist position by steering the conversation and attempting to win the argument. Think about this guys, are you really trying to persuade, or are you trying to win an argument/debate? I've attempted to pull the conversation back and go slower so that the things we agree on can be staged and the specifics we disagree on can be focused on. I thought that was what Paul was trying to do in his question to me. Jason seems to have tried the same thing. But the conversation goes so fast and begins to bring in so many elements that it becomes a free-for-all that looks more like a demolition derby than any orderly desire to pursue truth. I truly want to understand where you guys are coming from. I get some of it, but there's a disconnect somewhere that simply eludes me. I see you holding on to tradition and scared to let go. If you do then your entire system collapses. You see me as... well, something else. The thing is, my position is not reliant upon my system, nor is my system reliant upon my position. My position is simply reliant upon my exegesis of Scripture, which shows me that those who give credible profession of faith are to be baptized.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.We all agree; right?

<